Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DENSO INDIA LTD. THRU' AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' COLLECTOR & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Denso India Ltd. Thru' Authorised Representative v. State Of U.P. Thru' Collector & Others - WRIT - C No. 11305 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 17684 (13 October 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Civil Misc. Review Application no. 236533 of 2005

In

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11305 of 2005

Denso India Ltd Vs. State of UP and others

HON'BLE YATINDRA SINGH, J.

HON'BLE RK RASTOGI, J.

1. D.I.N.D. Karmchari Vetan Bhogi Sahkari Rin Samiti Ltd (the cooperative society) is a cooperative society of employees of Denso India Ltd (the petitioner). This cooperative society took loan from Ghaziabad District Cooperatie Bank Ltd (the Bank) for disbursing it to its members. It appears that the loan could not be paid and the recovery notice was issued against the petitioner and they filed writ petition no. 11305 of 2005. This writ petition was disposed of on 14.11.2005.

2. The petitioner has filed a review application to recall this order. Apart from the petitioner; five other employees of the petitioner and members of the cooperative society have filed application for impleadment and review. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. This was agreed between the parties that at the time of hearing of the review application, the writ petition itself may be decided. With the consent of the parties we are deciding the same.

3. We have heard Sri Ajay Bhanot, counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nikhil Kumar, counsel for the the Bank and Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, Sernior Advocate, assisted by Sri SS Misra, counsel for the persons seeking impleadment and the standing counsel for the State officials.

4. The court while disposing of the writ petition on 14.11.2005 had recorded the following findings :

(i)The petitioner had given an undertaking that they will deduct monthly instalment from the salary of the employees for payment to the Bank, and in case any employee leave the service or expires, the petitioner shall pay the amount due to the Bank in respect of the share of that employee.

(ii) The petitioner-company was directed to deduct the amount as mentioned in SA-2. But liberty was granted to the cooperative society or its members to raise the dispute before the appropriate forum.

5. The petitioner was given a notice by respondent no. 6  for a sum of Rs. 40,04,185.44. Thereafter respondent no. 2 has also issued a recovery for the same amount. But in SA-2 an amount of Rs. 66,51,903.00 is shown to be payable by  the cooperative society. It is more than the amount for which notice and recovery was sent. In view of this, the review application is partly allowed. The portion of our finding that the money can be recovered in terms of SA-2 is set aside. The total amount due and amount of deduction from the salary is yet to be finalised. This may be done by respondent no. 6. In view of this recovery proceeding are quashed. The parties may appear before respondent no. 6 on 21.11.2006 and thereafter respondent no. 6 after considering the case of parties may finalise the amount and thereafter recover it in accordance with law.

6. In order to show bonafide of the petitioner, the petitioner-company shall  also deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000,00/- by 15.11.2006 before respondent no. 6. It is made clear that if they do not deposit the said amount by 15.11.2006 then the petitioner will not be entitled to be heard.

7. The cooperative society has not appeared before the Court. The  cooperative society is of the employees of the petitioner.  It will be the duty of the petitioner to inform respondent no. 4 (Society) about this date.  

8.. Some of the employees who have filed applications for impleadment have mentioned that they have paid the entire amount to the cooperative society and as such are not liable to pay any amount. This matter is between the petitioner and the cooperative society. We do not consider it necessary to go in to this dispute. This matter is between employees and the cooperative society and it may be raised by aggrieved party before appropriate forum.

9. After the writ petition was disposed of on 14.11.2005 some amount has been appropriated by the Bank.  This amount and the amount ordered to be deposited today shall be adjusted in the final accounting.    

10. With these observations the applications are disposed of.

Date: 13.10.2006

SKS


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.