BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. Vs. PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2.9.2006 passed by the District Judge, Bhiwani dismissing the appeal preferred by the present appellant against the judgment and decree dated 14.6.2005 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhiwani.

(2.) THE Appellant is a Company duly incorporated under Companies Act, 1956. The appellant filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 25,296/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum, against the respondent allegedly on account of non- payment of the outstanding dues for the use of Telephone No. 243788 held by the respondent as a subscriber. The amount is said to be due for the period 29.1.1992 till the disconnection on 16.3.1998. Admittedly when the telephone was installed and remained in operation till its disconnection, telephone services were being provided by the Telecommunication Department of Government of India. It is the case of the appellant that the Government of India on the basis of its policy decision established a Company under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and vide Memorandum dated 30.9.2000 transferred all the assets and liabilities of Department of Telecommunication Services to the Appellant-Company with effect from 1.10.2000. The Appellant, accordingly, on the basis of the fact that it acquired all the assets and liabilities of the Telecommunication Department of Government of India, filed the suit for recovery against the respondent being the amount payable for the use of the telephone earlier installed by the Telecommunication Department of Government of India.

(3.) FROM the aforesaid definition, the expressions "Central Government" can include only such authorities as are indicated therein. It is admitted case of the appellant that the appellant is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, though it has acquired the assets and liabilities of a department of the Central Government. The appellant being a Company is a separate and distinct entity from the Central Government. Whether its functioning is controlled by the Central Government as claimed by the appellant or not, is irrelevant. It may be a wholly controlled government company, but insofar as its legal and contractual rights and liabilities are concerned, it cannot acquire the status of "Central Government", by any stretch of imagination. The expression "Central Government" as defined in the General Clauses Act does not include even within its expansive definition a Government owned or controlled Company. Article 112 clearly provides the limitation in respect of a suit by Central Government or by State Government and not by any of its instrumentalities or agency, particularly a Corporation, even if established by the Central Government/State Government. The findings recorded by the courts below on this question cannot be faulted with.