PROMINENT COMTECH PVT. LTD. vs BORDER SECURITY FORCE & ANR.

2024-02-16 Information

$~2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision:16th February, 2024
+ CS(COMM) 1131/2018
PROMINENT COMTECH PVT. LTD. ….. Plaintiff
Through: Ms. Kirti Mewar, Advocate.

versus

BORDER SECURITY FORCE & ANR. ….. Defendants
Through: Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with Mr. Waize Ali Noor, Mr. Varun Rajawat, Mr. Varun P. Singh, Mr. Kartik Baijal and Ms. Shreya V. Mehra, Advocates for D1.
Mr. Avi singh, Mr. Shiven Verma and Mr. Ashutosh Jain, Advocates for D2.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T (oral)
I.A. 12968/2018 (under Section 80(2) read with Section 151 CPC filed on behalf of the plaintiff)

1. The application under Section 80(2) read with Section 151 CPC, has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff along with the suit for exemption from serving a Notice under Section 80 of the CPC to the defendant.
2. It is submitted in the application that the defendants are aware of its liability to pay the outstanding dues, which is pending for a considerable period. Hence, Notice under Section 80 of the CPC, really was a formality and the exemption may be granted to the plaintiff from issuing Notice under Section 80 of the CPC.
3. It is a suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff.
4. The defendant No. 1 in its Reply to the present application has taken a preliminary objection that the present Suit filed by the plaintiff for Recovery of Money. Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC, 1908) being mandatory in nature, the present Suit is not maintainable before expiry of two months after the notice in writing has been delivered at the Office of the defendant No. 1. There is no immediate relief urged by the plaintiff for being granted an exemption from serving the Notice under Section 80 of CPC, 1908.
5. It is submitted that Section 80 of CPC, 1908 is intended for advancement of justice and for securing of public good by avoidance of unnecessary litigation and suit is not maintainable. Reliance has been placed on the decision in State of A.P. and Ors. vs. Pioneer Builders (2006) 12 SCC 119 and Bihar Chowdhary and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (1984) 2 SCC 627.
6. It is, therefore, submitted that there is no ground for exempting the plaintiff from giving the Notice under Section 80(2) of CPC, 1908 and the present application along with present Suit is liable to be rejected.
7. Submissions heard.
8. The objective of Section 80(2) of CPC, 1908 has been succinctly encapsulated by the Apex Court in the case of Pioneer Builders (supra), wherein it has been observed that the legislative intent of Section is to give the Government sufficient notice of the Suit, which is proposed to be filed against it so that it may reconsider the decision and decide for itself whether the claim made could be accepted or not.
9. Similarly, in Bihar Chowdhary (supra), it has been observed that when the scheme of Section is examined, it becomes obvious that the Section has been enacted as a measure of Public Policy with the object of ensuring that before a suit is instituted against the Government or a public officer, it is given an opportunity to scrutinise the claim in respect of which the Suit is proposed to be filed and if found to be a just claim, to take immediate action and thereby avoid unnecessary litigation and to save public time and money.
10. From the aforesaid judgments, it is evident that the objective of inserting Section 80 of CPC, 1908 was to save public money and avoid unnecessary litigation, if the claims proposed to be made by the plaintiff, can be settled without coming to the Court.
11. In the present case, undeniably, the present Suit has been filed on 24.09.2018 and since then, the mater is pending only for consideration of Application under Section 80(2) of CPC, 1908. The objective of Section 80 of CPC, 1908 being to give notice to the defendant/Government to come forth with any proposal of settling the claim, has not yielded any result in the present proceedings. Though the matter is pending since September, 2018 till date at no point of time has the defendant come forth with any proposal of settling the claim. The entire objective of filing of the suit in the Court is satisfied as despite putting in appearance in the Court on 08.10.2018, there is no proposal for settlement from the Government/defendant.
12. The Suit has been pending for more than six years and no purpose would be served on insisting of service of Legal Notice before registering the Suit filed on behalf of the plaintiff.
13. Learned counsel on behalf of the defendant No. 1 submits that the defendant No. 1 itself has a dispute in regard to the same amount with the defendant No. 2, which is claimed by the plaintiff. Therefore, there is no possibility of any settlement inter se the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1.
14. The objective of Section 80 of CPC, 1908 has been amply satisfied in the last more than six years. Therefore, considering the peculiar circumstances of this case, it is held that there has been sufficient compliance of Section 80 of CPC, 1908.
15. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.
CS(COMM) 1131/2018
16. Issue summons.
17. Mr. Kirtiman Singh, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the defendant No. 1, accepts notice.
18. Mr. Avi Singh, learned counsel for the defendant No. 2, accepts notice.
19. List before the Joint Registrar for completion of pleadings and admission/denial of the documents on 21.03.2024.

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 16, 2024/RS

CS(COMM) 1131/2018 Page 1 of 4