Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 4614
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
Jagat Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
RFA 27 of 2019 and CM APP Nos.9175 of 2019, 14121 of 2021, 36188 of 2022 & 36189 of 2022
Decided On : 19-05-2023
Ms. Ellis J.D. Ahuja, Dr. Naipal Singh and Mr. R.K. Joshi, Advocates, for the Appellant along with Mr. Jagat Singh (Appellant-in-person).
Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC for UOI.
Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel for ED with Mr. Vivek Gurnani and Mr. Kartik Sabharwal, Advocates for ED.
A party which is in possession of the evidence, does not produce it, despite specific orders of the Civil Courts, adverse inference against such party ought to be drawn in favour of the other party.
Headnote:
JUDGMENT - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [ACT SECTION LIST] - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a senior panel counsel for the Central Government, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,05,08,500/- against the defendants, the Union of India and others, for non-payment of fees for representing the Enforcement Directorate before the Appellate Tribunal of Foreign Exchange. The plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to Rs. 3,000/- per hearing, per day before the Appellate Tribunal, as per the terms and conditions laid down by the Ministry of Law in their revised scheme for engagement of Senior Panel Counsels. The defendants contended that the plaintiff was only entitled to Rs. 1,000/- per hearing, per day, as per the proposal made by the Enforcement Directorate to the Ministry of Finance.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to payment at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per effective hearing, as per the order of the Law Secretary, and that he was also entitled to payment at the rate of Rs. 500/- per hearing for ineffective hearings, as per the order of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3252/2012. The court also held that the plaintiff was entitled to interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date when such payment was due till the date of realization.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree of RS 1,05,08,500/- and if so, at what rate of interest? 2. Relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following legal principles: * The court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. (Section 114 illustration (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872) * A party which is in possession of the evidence, does not produce it, despite specific orders of the Civil Courts, adverse inference against such party ought to be drawn in favour of the other party. (Ibrahim Uddin & Anr, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 148)
Final Decision: The court decreed in favor of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 12,39,800/- (Rs. 9,91,500/- towards 1983 ineffective hearings at the rate of Rs. 500/- per hearing and Rs. 2,48,300/- towards interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date when such payment was due till the date of realization) along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date of the impugned judgment and decree. The court also decreed in favor of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 2,86,000/- with interest at the rate of 4% per annum from the date of the impugned judgment and decree.
JUDGMENT
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]
1. This is a first appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgement and decree passed by the learned Trial Court in CS No. 57226/2016 (Old No. 1276/2014) dated 30.10.2018 titled as "Jagat Singh Vs Union of India & Ors", whereby the suit for recovery of Rs. 1,05,08,500/- filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the respondents/defendants was dismissed by the learned Trial Court.
2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties would be referred to, as they were referred before the learned Trial Court.
FACTS NOTED BY THE TRIAL COURT
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was a Senior Panel Counsel for Central Government from 28.04.2005 to 27.04.2008 and on 12.11.2009 vide order No. F24(1)/2009-Judl., of defendant No.3/ the Law Secretary, his name was further included, for a period of three years, on the panel of Senior Counsels for conducting cases filed against Public Officers while in service of Central Government, before the High Court of Delhi and Tribunals/etc.
4. It is further the case of the plaintiff that as a panel counsel, he represented defendant No.1/ the Enforcement Directorate, before the Appellate Tribunal of Foreign Exchange (hereinafter referred to as "Appellate Tribunal") at Janpath, New Delhi from 10.10.2009 to 17.10.2010 and vide letter dated 20.09.2010 issued by Directorate of Enforcement, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi, his services to represent defendant No.1/ the Enforcement Directorate before the Appellate Tribunal were terminated.
5. It is further the case of the plaintiff that on 01.10.2009, i.e. before the expiry of three months retainership period, he wrote to defendant No. 1/ the Enforcement Directorate that in case the defendant wanted his services for conducting cases before the Appellate Tribunal, it would be on the terms and conditions laid down by Ministry of Law in their revised scheme for engagement of Senior Panel Counsels vide order No. F24(1)/2009-Judl., of defendant No. 1/ the Enforcement Directorate.
6. It is further the case of the plaintiff that he came to know that defendant No. 1/ the Enforcement Directorate had written a letter dated 25.01.2010 to defendant No.2/ the Secretary, Ministry of Finance to consider his appointment on the terms and conditions specified at Rs 1000/- per hearing, per day before the Appellate Tribunal with effect from 10.10.2009 till the vacant posts of Legal Officers are filled up. It is further his case that the said order contained terms and conditions contrary to the terms and conditions laid down by defendant No.3/ the Law Secretary in the letter dated 12.11.2009, so it was an arbitrary and illegal order which was not addressed to him and rather was concealed from him.
7. It is further the case of the plaintiff that on 16.04.2010, defendant No. 1/ the Enforcement Directorate sent a reminder to defendant No. 2/ the Secretary, Ministry of Finance vide a letter confirming that defendant No. 1/ the Enforcement Directorate was hell bent upon to carry one illegality after the other and this was contrary to the letter dated 01.10.2009 written by him to the defendant making his terms and conditions for further giving his services to the defendant to represent the department before the Appellate Tribunal.
8. It is further the case of the plaintiff that on 10.05.2010, defendant No. 2/ the Secretary, Ministry of Finance asked defendant No. 1/ the Enforcement Directorate vide the letter dated 10.05.2010 to furnish the information that in case rate of Rs. 1000/- per hearing, per case, per day before the Appellate Tribunal is agreed to, what would be the remuneration in the month of November, December 2009, January 2010, February and March 2010.
9. It is further the case of the plaintiff that in reply to the above letter dated 10.05.2010, defendant No. 1/ the Enforcement Directorate furnished the
