R.P. Mahajan vs Ralson (India)

M.L. Singhal, J.

This is revision against the order of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana dated 20.5.1999 whereby she refused to allow the prayer of the petitioners (defendants 5 to 9) for direction to the respondentsplaintiffs to furnish better particulars required in the case.

Ralson (India), Ralson Nagar, G.T. Road, Ludhiana through its Managing Director, Shri Sanjiv Pahwa and its Liaison Officer Jawahar Lal and two others filed suit for the recovery of Rs. 3.27 crores i.e. Rs. 1.63 crores as principal plus Rs. 64 lacs as interest and Rs. 1 crore as damages against Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi and other defendants and for declaration that the amounts described and detailed in the heading of the plaint which include the amount of FDRs, Indira Vikas Patras, NSCs are the ownership of the plaintiffcompany and for declaration that the properties i.e. Kothi No. 225, Green Park, Near Bus Stand, Jullundur and plot situated at Kabul Singh Nagar in the name of R.P. Mahajan and his wife Smt. Sneh Lata Mahajan had been purchased with the funds misappropriated by R.P. Mahajan by withdrawing the amount from the account of the plaintiff company bearing No. 31 with Punjab National Bank, Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana fraudulently and illegally and that the said two properties are liable to be appropriated towards the dues of the plaintiff company by sale or otherwise and for the grant of permanent injunction restraining the Union of India and others defendant Nos. 1 to 4 from releasing the FDRs, Indira Vikas Patras, NSCs and cash amount recovered by them from the possession of R.P. Mahajan during income tax raid and police investigation to anybody except the plaintiff company as it is the plaintiff company which is entitled to receive the amount of FDRs, Indira Vikas Patras, NSCs along with cash amount from Union of India and others defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and for mandatory injunction directing the Punjab National Bank, Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana to release the amount of Rs. 2.50 lacs lying deposited with them and attached under the orders of the police authorities in favour of the plaintiff company and further directing the Union of India and the Director of Income Investigation, Chandigarh defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to release the FDRs seized by them from the house of R.P. Mahajan and his wife Sneh Lata Mahajan defendant Nos. 5 to 6 at Jalandhar along with amount of Rs. 42,000/ in cash and NSCs in favour of the plaintiff. It was alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff company is a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act carrying on business in the manufacturing of cycles, rickshaw tyres and tubes and other cycles parts besides carbon black and also deals in import and export. R.P. Mahajan was appointed Financial ControllercumCompany Secretary of the plaintiff company on 28.11.85 at a monthly salary of Rs. 3,000/ vide appointment letter dated 28.11.85. His function was to manage and control the finance, bank accounts and supervise the accounts of the company and was answerable to the management of the company. Shri Om Parkash Pahwa was earlier the Managing Director of the plaintiff company. On 15.2.91, Shri Om Parkash Pahwa expired. Shri Sanjiv Pahwa took over as Managing Director of the company when he was only 24 years old. He was not at well versed with the intricacies of the company affairs especially finance. R.P. Mahajan was already looking after and handling the finances of the company. Sanjiv Pahwa began deposing faith in him. Sanjiv Pahwa had to remain out of Ludhiana in connection with the affairs of the company. In his absence, R.P. Mahajan exercised complete control over the financial matters of the company. With the passage of time, R.P. Mahajan won over the faith and confidence of the other Directors as well. Shri Sanjiv Pahwa used to sign blank letter heads, blank cheque books which remained in the custody of R.P. Mahajan due to inexperience and also due to his preoccupation. On 15.7.91, there was brutal attack on Sanjiv Pahwa by some terrorist group and that was also the reason for his signing blank letter heads etc. Shri Sanjiv Pahwa remained unhurt but it created fear in his mind that his presence at Ludhiana might cost him his life. This incident benefited R.P. Mahajan and he strenthened his grip on the affairs of the company with greater vigour. His mother Smt. Krishna Pahwa was also attacked. Both left for Delhi and handed over the control and charge to R.P. Mahajan. In their absence, R.P. Mahajan used to deal with the finances and accounting and other daytoday affairs of the company. R.P. Mahajan for the purpose of operating the bank accounts and for the smooth running of the plaintiff company used to obtain the signatures of Sanjiv Pahwa Managing Director and Smt. Krishna Pahwa Director of the company on blank cheque, blank transfer advices and on the blank letter heads of the company who used to sign in good faith. In mutshell, R.P. Majahan was exclusively handling the affairs of the company. In the income tax raid which was conducted at Jalandhar at the residence of R.P. Mahajan, income tax authorities recovered the FDRs the details of which together with the amount have been given in Para 5 of the plaint. Apart from the FDRs, the income tax authorities also recovered NSCs valuing Rs. 1.25 lacs and cash amount of Rs. 42,000/. Blank cheques, blank transfer advices, blank letter heads of the plaintiff company signed by Sanjiv Pahwa and Krishna Pahwa were also recovered. In this raid, some blank cheques signed by Ramesh Lal were also recovered. On account of this heavy recovery from the house of R.P. Mahajan by the income tax authorities, the plaintiff company became extremely conscious and they started investigating into the account of the plaintiff company including the bank accounts etc. which had been under the control of R.P. Mahajan. Investigation revealed that R.P. Mahajan had misapropriated huge amounts of the plaintiff company which was not less than Rs. 1.63 crores. It was an act of criminal breach of trust on the part of R.P. Mahajan. Plaintiff company cross checked all the bank accounts especially with the Punjab National Bank, Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana and tried to tally them with their books of accounts kept by the company and it was found that though huge amounts have been withdrawn from the plaintiff company but not even a single entry was there in the books of accounts of the plaintiff company. On further investigation, it was defected that it was all the handi work of R.P. Mahajan and one Jasvir Singh who is Finance Manager and one Ramesh Lal, the then employee of the plaintiff company. Case F.I.R. No. 230 dated 7.12.92 was registered at PS Focal Point, Ludhiana under Sections 406, 467, 471, 420, 408 read with Section 120B I.P.C. During investigation, the police recovered a sum of Rs. 40,58,412/ from R.P. Mahajan along with Indira Vikas Patras worth Rs. 9.10 lacs. A private complaint was also filed against R.P. Mahajan by the plaintiff company under Sections 406, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C. Amount of Rs. 40,48,412/ recovered by the police during investigation belonged to the plaintiff company. This amount was released to the plaintiff company on Spudari by the court. R.P. Mahajan by misusing the blank cheques and blank transfer advices etc. signed by Sanjiv Pahwa and his mother in good faith and handed over to R.P. Mahajan for operating the bank account and for smooth running of the plaintiff company, handed over and signed by the Managing Director and other directors of the plaintiff company illegally and stealthily withdrew sum of Rs. 1,29,47,500/ and got prepared pay orders in the name of fictitious firms and got prepared FDRs of the said amount in the name of the said fictitious firms. In fact the said firms are fictitious firms/companies. R.P. Mahajan and his wife purchased properties out of the amounts withdrawn by R.P. Mahajan from the accounts of the plaintiff company in their names or in the names of their kith and kin. Details of these properties have been mentioned in the plaint.

Defendants R.P. Mahajan and others 5 to 9 i.e. he, his wife and children made an application under Order 6 Rules 4 and 5 read with Section 151 C.P.C. Calling upon the plaintiffs to furnish better particulars so that they could furnish written statement. It was alleged by them that the plaintiff company has not given the number, date of maturity of the FDRs nor the particulars of persons other than defendant Nos. 5 to 9 regarding which declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction had been claimed so that they could furnish written statement explaining each FDR etc. Their prayer was that the plaintiff company should be called upon to furnish better particulars namely the details of the FDRs. Similarly, their prayer was that the plaintiff company should be called upon to furnish the particulars of NSCs with number, date, date of maturity and the name of the issuing post office and the name of the persons in whose names the NSCs had been purchased. Similarly, they had prayed for direction to them to furnish particulars with regard to other deposits. This prayer was opposed by the plaintiff company urging that they are not aware of the number and the date of maturity of the FDRs. Whatever particulars of the FDRs were available with them that they had mentioned in Annexure A. Similarly, they have furnished the details of NSCs in Annexures C1 to C3. They had furnished information with regard to Indira Vikas Patras in Annexure B which they could collect from the police of PS Focal Point, Ludhiana.

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana declined this prayer of the petitioner i.e. defendant Nos. 5 to 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that how could they furnish written statement till the details of FDRs etc. are furnished. It has been submitted that for the fair determination of the matter, the court should have called upon the plaintiff company to furnish better particulars. It has been submitted that the court should use the provisions of Order 6 Rule 5 C.P.C. effectively so that when the pleadings of any party do not furnish the necessary details which are required for the fair determination of the matter, the necessary details are got furnished and the matter is determined in a fair and just manner. Order 6 Rule 5 C.P.C. lays down as under :

"Further and better statement, or particulars

A further and better statement of the nature of claim or defence, or further and better particulars of any matter stated in any pleading, may in all cases be ordered upon such terms, as to costs and otherwise, as may be just."

It is true that the object of Order 6 Rule 5 is to call upon the party to make its pleadings more clear and specific so that the other party gets to know what is his case which he is to meet. In Kalyan Singh v. James S. Ram, 1987 Civil Court Cases 233, the Hon''ble Rajasthan High Court held that the plaintiff should furnish better particulars of the goods which are damaged and removed and what was the cash which was removed from the shop etc. It was a suit for damages instituted by a tenant. The plaint was not disclosing the details of the loss suffered by the tenant. In the plaint, it was mentioned that the defendant/petitioner broke open the shop and took away goods and other valuable things including the cash by removing the patties and shutters of the shop. Loss was described as goods taken away amounting to Rs. 50,000/, counter shelf furniture and fixtures etc. damage Rs. 10,000/, financial loss to business Rs. 50,000/ and mental and physical suffering Rs. 50,000/, financial loss on account of litigation etc. Rs. 10,000/. After giving this breakup the plaintiff restricted claim only to Rs. 15,000/ by mentioning the amount under each head. Defendant''s grievance was that unless the particulars of the loss suffered by the plaintiff were mentioned, he was not in a position to submit proper written statement. It was also his contention that without particulars he may not be able to deny the specific allegations and it might not be construed as admission on his part.

It is true that the pleadings should be quite clear and specific. It is equally true that the parties are required to furnish information on the pleas which he has taken in so far as they are within his knowledge. Plaintiff company has furnished information in the plait in so far as it was within its knowledge. R.P. Mahajan was not a stranger to the plaintiff company. As per the plaintiff company, he was Financial ControllercumCompany Secretary of the plaintiff company and his function was to control and manage the bank accounts and supervise the accounts of the company and after the death of Shri Om Parkash Pahwa, the previous Managing Director of the plaintiff company, Sanjiv Pahwa took over as Managing Director of the company at a raw age of 24 years. He and his mother reposed complete faith and confidence in R.P. Mahajan. As per the plaintiff company, as R.P. Mahajan committed breach of that faith and ran the company to ransom and misappropriated the money belonging to the company and purchased properties etc. in his name and in the name of his wife and other kith and kin. Sanjiv Pahwa or his mother was not on the de facto management of the affairs of the company. How could they furnish any specific information on the factual aspect of the case set up by the company. If defendantspetitioners want he may approach the police/criminal court for allowing them to inspect the records taken hold of by them during the investigation of the aforesaid case. Police/criminal court will permit them the inspection of the records taken hold of by them during the investigation of the case F.I.R. No. 230 dated 7.12.92 of PS Focal Point, Ludhiana. Similarly, they can approach the Director of Income (Investigation), Chandigarh to allow them inspection of the FDRs etc. seized by them during the course of income tax raid at the business premises of the plaintiff company, residential premises of R.P. Mahajan at Jalandhar and if any such request is made by the defendants to the police/court or the Director of Income (Investigation), Chandigarh, they shall permit them the inspection of that record. So far as the plaintiff company is concerned, no direction can be given to them to furnish any better particulars when whatever they could furnish, they have already furnished in the plaint and the Annexures attached thereto.

We cannot take provisions of Order 6 Rule 5 C.P.C. in vacuum. We have to take these provisions in the light of the facts and circumstances of each particular each.

For the reasons given above, this revision fails and is dismissed.