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

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Supreme Court clarified on how to determine if an allegation of fraud falls under “Fraud Exception” to Arbitrability

In AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS. vs HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED, the Supreme Court was hearing an appeal from the interlocutory judgment and order passed in the appeal under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Bombay High Court in a dispute between HSBC and Avitel India. HSBC had alleged that the Appellants had committed fraud by siphoning off the funds provided by them. As the agreement entered into by HSBC and the Appellants contained arbitration clause, HSBC approached the Singapore Arbitration Centre and the arbitration committee so formed executed award in favour of HSBC who filed application before the Bombay High Court for execution of the award. The Appellants contended objected to the award on various grounds and further argued that as fraud has been alleged, the dispute cannot be arbitrated.  The Supreme Court has held that “serious allegations of fraud” as a ground for exemption from arbitral proceedings arise only if either o...
Post a Comment
Read more