Skip to main content

Callous conduct of officials of a PSU is ‘misfeasance in public office’

In a landmark pronouncement of the Delhi High Court, a Division Bench of Justice Gita Mittal & Justice PS Teji has dismissed an appeal filed by The Pradeshiya Industrial & Investment Corporation of UP Ltd (PICUP) holding it as being”completely devoid of factual or legal merit.” Briefly, a property was mortgaged with PICUP by M/s Pacquik Industries Ltd. Another creditor of Pacquik Industries, one Sh. Darshan Khurana offered to make the payment of the OTS amount of about Rs. 2.20 Crores, on the behalf of Pacquik Industries to PICUP to have the title deeds of the property released to him to secure his interest. This request of Pacquik and Sh. Darshan Khurana was conveyed to PICUP vide letters, courier and facsimile communication. The management of PICUP, internally, objected to the title deeds being released to a third party, however chose to remain silent and accepted the amount, instead of conveying their decision either to Pacquik or Sh. Darshan Khurana. The entire hierarchy of officials of PICUP, right upto the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, in an internal noting, decided that “…Having regard to the above, the request of the company as per ‘A’ above is not feasible, and we are not in a position to accede to the same. However, we may await receipt of the OTS amount as committed by them and therafter (sic) advise them of the factual position.”

Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/callous-conduct-of-officials-of-a-public-sector-enterprise-is-misfeasance-in-public-office-delhi-hc/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more