Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 96 (ALL)

RAVI B. JADEJA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2001-02-02

S.K.AGARWAL

body2001
S. K. AGARWAL, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant and Sri P. N. Misra, Senior Advocate, as well as Sri N. K. Sharma, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2. ( 2 ) A complaint was filed with the allegations that the complainant firm was duped by the applicants. They were induced initially to supply them Sesame Seeds. Pursuant to the inducement the complainant had sent 17 truckloads of Sesame Seeds to the designated place in Gujarat where they were received by an officer of the ITC Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as company. ). ( 3 ) FROM a perusal of the various correspondences that are appended to this application it is very clear that the payment of price is not in dispute. What is apparently, in dispute is giving of h Forms. The applicants by their letter dated 21-10-1994 had intimated to the complainant and his firm that h Forms against their supplies are ready. They required the complainant to collect them personally. The requisite h Forms were pertaining to Pannalal Rajkumar Jain Traders and Kishan Hitkari Traders. Instead of collecting them personally the firm Pannalal Rajkumar continued to write down to the officers of ITC Ltd. i. e. the applicants in this application, to send these h Forms and in case if they are not sent they will be liable to pay Central Sales Tax, interest and penalty etc. The Company by its further letter dated 10-11-1994 intimated to firm, Pannalal Rajkumar, Mauranipur, Jhansi, that these h Forms are ready with them and they have requested them to collect these forms personally so as to close this transaction once and for all. They have further intimated to them that they are not liable to pay any Central Sales Tax or penalty or any other expenses towards these transactions in case if they fail to collect h forms. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the complainant a notice dated 8-12-1994 was sent to ITC Ltd. , Bombay, with the abovesaid allegations. Paragraph No. 6 of this notice very clearly points out fact in issue. It is quoted for ready reference as udner :"6. That you have failed to send the Form h of Central Sales Tax inspite of the repeated requests of my client and are avoiding on one pretext or the other. Paragraph No. 6 of this notice very clearly points out fact in issue. It is quoted for ready reference as udner :"6. That you have failed to send the Form h of Central Sales Tax inspite of the repeated requests of my client and are avoiding on one pretext or the other. "paragraph No. 7 also is relevant and is quoted for ready reference as under :"7. That the amount of Tax comes to Rs. 26,20,959. 07 paise plus interest Rs. 61,820. 00. "in the end in paragraph No. 8 the noticee requested or required the applicants to send Form h or its amount of tax within 10 days from the receipt of the notice. Thus, from these three paragraphs it is apparent that there was no dispute with regard to the payment of price. The dispute was only with regard to the conveyance of Form h by these applicants to the complainant firm. In response to this notice the letter on behalf of the Company dated 14-12-1994 signed by N. Bhosle is of significance. It refers to their letter dated 10-11-1994 whereby the complainant was required to collect Form h. It further very clearly says "we do not want to send them by post since there is a possibility that the packet may get lost in transit or we do not want to hear from them at a later date that same Forms are missing or any complaint of similar nature. We therefore, request you to inform your client to depute their representative to collect the Forms which are ready with us. "another letter dated 16-6-1995 signed by N. Bhosle, an applicant to this application, again reiterates this fact. The Company had sent another letter repeating this very fact on 6-7-1995 also. Another letter dated18-12-1995 by way of third reminder was sent by the Company, duly signed by N. Bhosle, in this regard to Shanker Lal Agarwal, who on behalf of Pannalal Rajkumar and Co. had sent the impugned notice. In response to these letters sent from the applicants side on 27-12-1995 a written communication was addressed on behalf of the Pannalal Rajkumar to ITC Ltd. , Bombay. This letter clearly indicates that they had visited the office but Form h were not given to them, although no-dues were already obtained in June, 1994. had sent the impugned notice. In response to these letters sent from the applicants side on 27-12-1995 a written communication was addressed on behalf of the Pannalal Rajkumar to ITC Ltd. , Bombay. This letter clearly indicates that they had visited the office but Form h were not given to them, although no-dues were already obtained in June, 1994. This further shows that it was not a case of non-payment of the price of Sesame Seeds received on behalf of ITC Ltd. by one of the applicants. ( 5 ) THE abovesaid facts and circumstances leave no room for any doubt that the principal part of allegations made in the complaint with regard to non-payment of price is not borne out from the correspondence between the parties, as discussed above. What is apparent is that the dispute between the parties relate only to non conveyance of Form h which had created a liability towards Central Sales Tax on the head of the firm Pannalal Rajkumar. Therefore, in these cicumstances continuance of the proceedings in complaint Case No. 248 of 1997 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Mauranipur, Distict Jhansi, between Harnam Singh and R. B. Jadeja and others under Sections 406/420/120-B/409, I. P. C. shall clearly be an abuse of process of the Court. ( 6 ) MOREOVER if, any dispute with regard to Form h is there, it cannot be said on any count that these applicants had in any manner decieved the complainant. It at best raises a civil dispute between the parties. From the letters of the Company, signed by N. Bhosle, it is evident that they were ready to provide the complainant Form h against the goods supplied to them by him. The only condition was that it should be collected personally or through an authorised representative. According to paragraph No. 15 of the application filed before this Court these forms were handed over to the firm Pannalal Rajkumar on 2-1-1997 and a receipt was duly executed by Raj Kumar Jain, Proprietor /partner of the abovesaid firm. ( 7 ) IN view of the abovesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any valid reason for this complaint to proceed any further. It apparently was filed to wield pressure upon the applicants to hand over Form h at his door. ( 7 ) IN view of the abovesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any valid reason for this complaint to proceed any further. It apparently was filed to wield pressure upon the applicants to hand over Form h at his door. The complainant succeeded in this ploy when the applicants yielded and delivered these forms at his place of business. In the circumstances, this application is allowed and the proceedings in case No. 248 of 1997 (Harnam Singh v. Ravi V. Jadeja) pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Mauranipur, Distict Jhansi, are hereby quashed. Petition allowed. .