# K.S. Singhal v. The Indian Tobacco Company Ltd

- **Citation:** (2001) 2 ILRA 32
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1998-09-15
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/k-s-singhal-v-the-indian-tobacco-company-ltd-39727
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

32 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
of stating his case against the proposed
cancellation or suspension as the case
may be.

3. It is thus apparent that proviso to
sub-clause (2) of Clause 8 of the Control
Order
contemplates
opportunity
of
hearing to be given to the licensee if any
order for cancellation or suspension of his
licence is made.

4. In the instant case, since on the
face of the impugned order itself it
appears that no opportunity of hearing
was given to the petitioner. Therefore, we
are of the view that the said order is not in
conformity with the proviso to clause 8
(2) of the Control Order, 1989 and such,
the same cannot be sustained.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
order of suspension dated 11.05.2000 is
hereby quashed. We, however, feel that
the respondent authorities shall be at
liberty to take such steps as may be
advised in accordance with law.

The writ petition is allowed.

Petition Allowed.

5(9,6,21$/ -85,6',&7,21
5(9,6,21$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( %. 5$7+, -
7+( +21·%/( %. 5$7+, -

&LYLO 5HYLVLRQ 1R RI

6UL .6 6LQJKDO «'HIHQGDQW$SSOLFDQW
9HUVXV
7KH ,QGLDQ 7REDFFR &RPSDQ\ /WG
«3ODLQWLII2SSRVLWH SDUW\
%HWZHHQ
7KH ,QGLDQ 7REDFFR &RPSDQ\ /WG
«3ODLQWLII
9HUVXV
6UL .6 6LQJKDO
«'HIHQGDQW

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 0DKDGDY -DLQ
&RXQVHO IRU 5HVSRQGHQWV
6KUL 0XUOLGKDU
6KUL 7DUXQ 9HUPD

&RGH RI &LYLO SURFHGXUH 6V DQG
 ± PDODILGH ± 6XLW IRU HMHFWPHQW ±
VXLW HDUOLHU ILOHG IRU LQMXQFWLRQ DQG RWKHU
UHOLHI ± 6FRSH RI WKH VXLW ± DSSOLFDWLRQ
IRU
VWD\
ILOHG
DIWHU

\HDUV
KHOG
PDODILGH
+HOG ± 3DUDV
7KH VXLWV ZHUH GHFLGHG E\ D FRPPRQ
MXGJHPHQW GDWHG &RS\ RI
WKH
MXGJHPHQW
LV
DQQH[XUH

7KH
MXGJHPHQW VKRZ WKDW LW KDV EHHQ KHOG
WKDW WKH DSSOLFDQW LV HQWLWOHG WR UHOLHI RI
LQMXQFWLRQ DV SUD\HG LUUHVSHFWLYH RI WKH
IDFW ZKHWKHU KH LV WHQDQW RU OLFHQFHH RI
WKH VKRS LQ GLVSXWH DV KH LV LQ WKH
SRVVHVVLRQ RI WKH VKRS DQG FDUU\LQJ RQ
EXVLQHVV
,W
PD\
DOVR
EH PHQWLRQHG WKDW WKH
DSSOLFDWLRQ
LV
PDODILGH
7KH
VXLW
IRU
HYLFWLRQ ZDV ILOHG ZKLFK LV SHQGLQJ VLQFH
WKH \HDU DQG DWWHPSW LV EHLQJ PDGH
WR GHOD\ WKH GLVSRVDO RI WKH VXLWV LQ VRPH
ZD\ RU WKH RWKHU ,Q HDUOLHU VXLWV RQ WKH
EDVLV RI ZKLFK VWD\ KDV EHHQ UHTXHVWHG
DUH RI WKH \HDU 7KHUH LV QR UHDVRQ
DV WR ZK\ WKH DSSOLFDWLRQ IRU VWD\ RI VXLW
ZDV PRYHG DIWHU WKH H[SLU\ RI SHULRG RI
ILIWHHQ \HDUV

By the Court

1. The opposite party filed the suit
against the revisionist, which is numbered
267/85 pending in the court of the Xth
2All] K.S. Singhal V. The Indian Tobacco Company Ltd.

Additional District Judge, Agra. The
revisionist moved an application (130-C)
under section 10 read with Section 151
C.P.C. for stay of the Suit till the decision
of the pending appeals nos. 361/98 and
379/99 arising out of Suits Nos. 551/82
and 518/82. The application was opposed
by objections 136-C. The Additional
District Judge considered the arguments
and has rejected the application for stay of
Suit under Section 10 and 151 C.P.C.
Aggrieved by the that order, the present
revision has been filed.

2. I have heard Sri Mahdav Jain,
learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri
Murlidhar, Senior Advocate assisted by
Sri Tarun Verma, learned counsel for the
opposite party and have perused the
record.

3. The present Suit No. 267/85 is a
very old Suit pending since 1985 in which
the relief of eviction of the revisionist
from the disputed premises and for
recovery of damages have been sought.
The suit was filed after the termination of
the
licence.
Request
made
by
the
defendant - revisionist was for stay of
Suit till the disposal of the appeal filed
against the decision of Suits nos. 518/82
and 551/82. Copy of the plaint of Suit No.
518/82 is annexure 4 to the affidavit and
this Suit was filed by the revisionist
against the opposite party. The relief
sought in the Suit is that the opposite
party be restrained from interfering with
the possession and enjoyment of the shop
in dispute either by withholding supply of
electricity etc. or obstructing access of the
applicant or his employees to the shop in
dispute. Issue was framed in the Suit is
whether the applicant is tenant or a
licencee of the shop in dispute.

4. Copy of the plaint of Suit No.
551/82 is annexure 5 of the affidavit. This
Suit was also filed by the revisionist
against the opposite party and four other
person. The relief sought in the Suit was
for injunction restraining the opposite
parties to permit any other person to
exhibit for sale or sell within the Hotel
premises any of the articles which are
being sold by the revisionist in Hotel
Mughal Sheraton, Agra. Both the Suits
were decided by Common Judgement,
dated 15.09.1998 (annexure 3 of the
affidavit) and appeals against the same as
mentioned above, are pending. It is
contended that in both Suits, the point for
decision is whether the applicant was the
licencee or tenant in the shop of dispute
and issue on this point was framed.

5. The Suits were decided by a
common judgement, dated 15.09.1998.
Copy of the judgement is annexure 3. The
judgement show that it has been held that
the applicant is entitled to relief of
injunction as prayed irrespective of the
fact whether he is tenant or licencee of the
shop in dispute as he is in the possession
of the shop and carrying on business.

6. Therefore, it appears from the
judgement that the question whether the
applicant is tenant or a licencee in the
shop in dispute is not involved in view the
relief claimed in those Suits and is not
required to be decided. The plaintiff
applicant was found entitled to the relief
in Suit No. 518/82 only on the basis of the
fact that he is in possession of the shop in
dispute and he is carrying on business.
The other Suit No. 551/82 was dismissed.

7. No doubt the issue whether the
plaintiff is tenant or licencee has been
framed, but in view of the nature of the
34 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
relief claimed this issue is unnecessary.
Therefore, the point involved in the
present Suit is not involved in the two
earlier instituted Suits. Therefore, the
application for stay of Suit was rightly
rejected.

8. Apart from this the Suit for
ejectment cannot be stayed because the
relief in the Suit filed by the plaintiff is
confined for the period till he is tenant/
licencee
of
the
disputed
premises.
Therefore, the scope of both the Suits is
different.

9. It may also be mentioned that the
application is malafide. The Suit for
eviction was filed, which is pending since
the year 1985 and attempt is being made
to delay the disposal of the Suits in some
way or the other. In earlier Suits on the
basis of which stay has been requested are
of the year 1982. There is no reason as to
why the application for stay of Suit was
moved after the expiry of period of fifteen
years.

I do not find any merit in the
revision.
The
revision
is,
accordingly,
dismissed.
Revision Dismissed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$' )(%58$5<
'$7(' $//$+$%$' )(%58$5<
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( %,12' .80$5 52< -
7+( +21·%/( %,12' .80$5 52< -
7+( +21·%/( $. <2* -
7+( +21·%/( $. <2* -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

7ULEKXZDQ 1DUD\DQ 6LQJK
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
9DUDQDVL 'HYHORSPHQW $XWKRULW\ WKURXJK
LWV 6HFUHWDU\ DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 5DYLQGUD 5DL
&RXQVHO IRU 5HVSRQGHQWV
6KUL 9HG 9\DV 0LVKUD

&RQVWLWXWLRQ
RI
,QGLD
$UWLFOH

±
([HUFLVH RI -XULVGLFWLRQ XQGHU ± 'RFWULQH
RI QRQ ± WUDYHUVH ± $SSOLFDELOLW\
+HOG ± 3DUD
7KH DOOHJDWLRQ RI XQIDLUQHVV IDYRXULWLVP
DQG FROOXVLRQ PDGH E\ WKH SHWLWLRQHU DUH
H[WUHPHO\
VHULRXV
,W
LV
QRW
XQGHUVWDQGDEOH DV WR ZK\ LQ IDYRXU RI
ZLIH
RI
D
SHUVRQ
ZKR
ZDV
LQ
DQ
XQDXWKRULVHG RFFXSDWLRQ RI WKH IODW LQ
TXHVWLRQ
OHDVH
ZDV
H[HFXWHG
E\
5HVSRQGHQW 1RV DQG ZKLFK ZDV
DOUHDG\ DOORWWHG WR WKH SHWLWLRQHU HDUOLHU
ZKR KDG DOVR SDLG D VXP RI 5V
DQG ZDV SUHSDUHG WR SD\ WKH EDODQFH
DPRXQW DV SHU WKH DJUHHPHQW DIWHU LWV
GHOLYHU\ RI SRVVHVVLRQ WR KLP 1R FRXQWHU
KDV EHHQ ILOHG GHVSLWH JUDQW RI UHSHDWHG
RSSRUWXQLWLHV
7KXV
ZH
LQYRNH
WKH
GRFWULQH RQ QRQWUDYHUVH 7KH QHW UHVXOW
LV WKDW ZH KROG WKDW WKH SHWLWLRQHU ZDV
QHYHU GHOLYHUHG SRVVHVVLRQ RI WKH IODW LQ
TXHVWLRQ E\ 5HVSRQGHQW 1RV DQG
ZKR KDG DOVR ZLWKGUDZQ WKHLU VXLW IRU
HYLFWLRQ
RI
5HVSRQGHQW
QR

DQG
SURFHHGHG WR VHWWOH WKH IODW LQ TXHVWLRQ
ZLWK 5HVSRQGHQW 1RV DQG WR UHWXUQ
EDFN
WKH
DPRXQW
GHSRVLWHG
E\
WKH
SHWLWLRQHU DORQJZLWK VXFK LQWHUHVW ZKLFK
5HVSRQGHQW QRV DQG DUH WKHPVHOYHV
FKDUJLQJ IURP VXFK GHIDXOWLQJ SDUWLHV
ZKR KDG HQWHUHG DQ DJUHHPHQW ZLWK
5HVSRQGHQW QRV DQG ZLWKLQ WKUHH
PRQWKV
IURP
WRGD\
:H
RUGHU
DFFRUGLQJO\

By the Court
ORDER

1. The petitioner has come up for
grant of following relief's:-