HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD, PANCHKULA AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S THE MALT COMPANY (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal, at the hands of the defendants, is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 15.03.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, whereby he accepted the first appeal of the plaintiff modifying the judgment and decree dated 03.10.2012 of the learned trial Court and decreed the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as recorded by learned trial Court in para 2 of its judgment, are that plaintiff was a limited company duly incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and has got its factory unit at village Gadaipur, Tehsil Pataudi, District Gurgaon. Sh. Mohit Jain was the Director of the plaintiff company and he was fully conversant with the facts of the case. He was also authorised to institute the suit, sign and verify pleadings, to engage counsel on behalf of the plaintiff company, vide resolution dated 23.03.2006 passed in the meeting of the Board of Directors of the plaintiff company. The plaintiff was dealing in manufacturing malt in its factory. He submitted that plaintiff company purchased barley i.e. an agriculture produce through various dealers of various markets which was exclusively used for manufacturing malt, from various organizers falling within territorial jurisdiction of various market committees with the State of Haryana and some organizers falling outside the State of Haryana. He averred that defendant No. 2/Market Committee had served a demand notice letter No.71 dated 08.0006 upon the plaintiff on form 'P' under Rule 31 of the Punjab Agriculture Produce Market Rules, 1962 for recovery of Rs.7,79,296/- which had been assessed for the levy of market fee and penalty on the business carried out by bringing barley during the period 01.06.2005 till 30.11.2005. In the amount of recovery mentioned in the demand notice, an amount of market fee had been held to be chargeable to the tune of Rs.3,89,648/- and an equal amount of penalty had been imposed to the tune of Rs.3,89,648/- total amounting to Rs.7,79,296/-. He further averred that no details of assessment and no copy of the orders passed by defendant No.2 under sub Rule (8) and (9) of Rule 31 of the Punjab Agriculture Produce Market Rules, 1962 was supplied or served before service of demand notice in form 'P'. So the plaintiff applied for supplying the same with written request on payment of fees. Copy of orders passed under sub Rule (8) and (9) of Rule 31 of Punjab Agriculture Produce Market Rules were supplied in the evening of 25.02006. He further averred that defendant No. 2 had further served a letter/notice No.148 dated 003.2006 threatening the plaintiff to recover the said amount as arrears of land revenue. That notice No. 71 dated 08.02006 and No.148 dated 003.2006 regarding demand and recovery mentioned in para No.5 of the plaint by defendant No. 2 is malafide, wrong, illegal, void ab initio, against the provisions of Punjab Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1961 as well as Rules provided under Punjab Agriculture Produce, 1962 applicable to State of Haryana, against principles of natural justice, rules of law and equity and the said demand and recovery notices were illegal and liable to be set aside and withdrawn on the following grounds: -

(3.) The plaintiff company had averred that there was no other equally efficacious remedy available to the plaintiff, except to file the suit of injunction, because recovery imposed by the defendants upon the plaintiff is illegal, so jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not excluded from granting injunction against the defendants. As the act of the defendants under the Act and Rules regarding imposition of fee and fine and its recovery were without jurisdiction, so the plaintiff was entitled to file the suit and was entitled to injunction restraining the defendants from initiating recovery proceedings against the plaintiff in respect of the amount mentioned in the aforesaid notice of recovery. He also submitted that no suit between the same parties under whom they or any of them claim litigation on the same grounds has been previously instituted or finally decided by a court of competent jurisdiction or limitation. He also further submitted that factory premises of the plaintiff as also the offices of defendants No.2 were situated within Gurgaon District, the impugned notice of recovery was issued at Gurgaon and cause of action arose at Gurgaon.