SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Del) 606

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Antriksh Bhawan Flat Owners And Occupants Welfare Society Regd. - Appellant
Versus
Gopal Ansal Huf & Ors. - Respondents
CS(COMM) 157 of 2023, I.A. 5482 of 2023, I.A. 5484 of 2023, I.A. 9512 of 2023
Decided On : 15-03-2024

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary and Ms. Niharika, Advocates, for the Plaintiff.
Mr. Harsh Ajay Singh, Advocate for D-1.
Mr. Akash Bhadana, Advocate for D-2 (VC).
Mr. Ajay Digpaul, Mr. Kamal Digpaul, Ms. Ishita Pathak, Advocates for D-3/ UOI.
Mr. Anupam Srivastava, ASC for GNCTD with Mr. Abhilash Mathur, Ms. Sarita Pandey, Ms. Anushka Bhatnagar, Advocates for D-4/Police. SI Mahavir Jogi, PS Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.

IMPORTANT POINT
The inviolable condition of serving notice under Section 140 of the DP Act before filing a suit against police officers.

Headnote:

Notice - Suit against Police Officer - DP Act 1978, Section 140 - The court dismissed the suit against Defendant No.4 as the notice under Section 140 of the DP Act was not served before the institution of the suit. The court emphasized the inviolable condition of serving notice under Section 140 before filing the suit and cited relevant case law to support its decision.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a suit seeking various declarations, injunctions, and damages against the defendants. The suit included a prayer for injunction against Defendant No.4, a police officer, for carrying out renovation/construction without permission. The defendant raised an objection regarding the absence of notice served under Section 140 of the DP Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the suit against Defendant No.4 was liable to be dismissed due to the mandatory requirement of serving notice under Section 140 of the DP Act before the institution of the suit.

Issues: The main issue was whether the suit against Defendant No.4, a police officer, was maintainable without serving notice under Section 140 of the DP Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the service of notice under Section 140 of the DP Act before the institution of the suit is inviolable, emphasizing the legislative intention to provide advance notice for alleged wrongdoing by police officers. The court also cited relevant case law to support its decision.

Final Decision: The suit against Defendant No.4 was dismissed, and the defendant was deleted from the array of parties.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)

1. The present suit has been filed for declaration, permanent & mandatory injunctions and damages with the following prayer:

    "A) Pass a Decree of Declaration declaring the terms of Builder- Buyer Agreement, Bye-Laws; Decisions and Resolutions of Plaintiff Society as regards total and complete administration, maintenance, repair, upkeep and replacement of common facilities; General common areas and facilities etc., binding upon all occupants/owners etc. including Defendant No.1 in the commercial building Antriksh Bhawan, 22, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001;

    B) Pass a Decree of Permanent Injunction restraining Defendant No.1 and 2, their agents, servants, successors or assigns and Police Officials of P.S. Barakhamba Road from carrying out any renovation/construction in Flat No.811, Antriksh Bhawan, 22, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001 in contravention of terms of Builder- Buyer Agreement, Bye-Laws; Decisions and Resolutions of Plaintiff Society and/or without seeking appropriate permission from Plaintiff Society;

    C) Pass a Decree of Mandatory Injunction directing Defendant No.1& 2, their agents, servants, successors or assigns to remove the Panel and/or any material installed for the purposes of renovation/beautification outside Flat No.811, Antriksh Bhawan, 22, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001;

    D) Pass a Decree of Mandatory Injunction directing Police Officials of P.S. Barakhamba Road to restrain themselves from assisting in any manner Defendant Nos. 1 or 2 carry out the renovation work in Flat No.811 in Antriksh Bhawan, 22, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001;

    E) Pass a Decree of Damages in favour of Plaintiff and against the Defendants for a sum of Rs. 10,09,500/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Nine Thousand and Five Hundred Only) for having damaged the Lift Lobby of 8th Floor of Antriksh Bhawan, 22, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001 and for constraining Plaintiff Society approach Court of laws and for causing undue harassment;

    F) Pass such and/or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case."

2. The prayer as contained in Clause-B has been sought against Defendant No. 4 along with Defendant Nos. 1, 2 & 3.

3. At the outset, learned counsel for Defendant No.4 has raised an objection that in the absence of notice served under Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act (hereinafter referred as `DP Act'). The present suit against Defendant No.4 is liable to be dismissed.

4. Learned counsel submits that the service of the notice under Section 140 of the DP Act is mandatory to be served before the institution of suit against the officers of the Delhi Police.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has controverted this submission. Learned counsel submits that a bare reading of Section 140 (1) of the Act makes it clear that if the suit has been filed within the three months after the date of the act complained of, the notice under Section 140 DP Act is not required. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that in the present case, the alleged wrong was done on 25.02.2023 and the present suit was filed on 14.03.2023. Learned counsel submits that therefore the present suit is maintainable against Defendant No.4. In support of his contention learned counsel has relied upon R.S. Yadav v. Sumer Singh Salkan & Ors in FAO (OS) 157/2015 and FAO (OS) 238/2015.

6. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that R.S. Yadav (Supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

7. I consider that the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff is liable to be rejected out rightly.

8. Section 140 of the DP (Delhi Police) Act 1978, reads as under

    "140. Bar to suits and prosecutions. - (1) In any case of alleged offence by a police officer or other person, or of a wrong alleged to have been done by such police officer or other person, by any act done under colour of duty or authority or in excess of any such duty or authority, or wherein it shall

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top