# M/s. Maya Press Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 3 ILRA 528
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-12-18
- **Bench:** Krishna Murari, Amar Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-maya-press-pvt-ltd-anr-v-union-of-india-ors-43435
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

First appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having
registered office at 281 Muthiganj, Allahabad and the second appellant is the Director of the company.
Both the appellants filed writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the notice dated 22.05.2015
issued by Assistant Regional Provident Fund Commissioner/Recovery Officer, respondent no. 3 herein
under Section 8-B (i) of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1952) and Income Tax
Act, 1961 issued to appellant no. 2 to show cause why he may not be detain in civil prison for failure
to satisfy the demand raised by Recovery Certificate RRC No. 5065 dated 20.04.2001, 40731 dated
08.04.2004, 45857 dated 27.04.2000 for a sum of Rs.71,81,297/- and has also failed to pay the
interest under Section 7Q of the Act, 1952.

"By means of present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for rejecting the impugned recovery
notice dated 22.5.2015 under Section 8-B (i) of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 and the Income Tax Act, 1961
issued by the respondent no.3 to the petitioner no.2 and further prayed for direction to the
respondents to decide the petitioner's representation dated 11.1.2014and 4.7.2014 after affording due
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
3 All. M/s. Maya Press Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Union Of India & Ors.
529
The court have not found any good ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge
dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner-appellants and imposing cost on both of them and the
same is hereby affirmed.

The special appeal, accordingly, stands dismissed.

Held: Para-

Case Law discussed:

A.Shanmugam v. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam,
(2012) 6

SCC 430 , Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2010) 2 SCC

114, V. Chandrashekaran & Anr. Vs.Administrative Officer & Ors., [(2012) 12 SCC 133]

## Text

528 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and Head Constable 106 Civil Police Mahesh Kumar on the basis of marks obtained by
respective appellants in the first evaluation of their answer sheets.

iv. Accordingly, all the petitioner-appellants who obtained 50% or more marks in
the Hindi Essay Paper in the first evaluation of answer-sheet shall be treated as successful in
Hindi Essay Paper. The respondents will as a consequqnce declare result of all above
petitioners- appellants and petitioner- non appellant/intervenor Suresh Chandra, within two
months from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order.

v. Special Appeal No.1220 of 2012 filed by the State- appellant is dismissed with
costs.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.12.2015

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHNA MURARI, J.
THE HON'BLE AMAR SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Special Appeal Defective No.- 647 of 2015

M/s. Maya Press Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Shri Krishna Mohan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Shri Amit Negi

First appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having
registered office at 281 Muthiganj, Allahabad and the second appellant is the Director of the company.
Both the appellants filed writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the notice dated 22.05.2015
issued by Assistant Regional Provident Fund Commissioner/Recovery Officer, respondent no. 3 herein
under Section 8-B (i) of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1952) and Income Tax
Act, 1961 issued to appellant no. 2 to show cause why he may not be detain in civil prison for failure
to satisfy the demand raised by Recovery Certificate RRC No. 5065 dated 20.04.2001, 40731 dated
08.04.2004, 45857 dated 27.04.2000 for a sum of Rs.71,81,297/- and has also failed to pay the
interest under Section 7Q of the Act, 1952.

"By means of present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for rejecting the impugned recovery
notice dated 22.5.2015 under Section 8-B (i) of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 and the Income Tax Act, 1961
issued by the respondent no.3 to the petitioner no.2 and further prayed for direction to the
respondents to decide the petitioner's representation dated 11.1.2014and 4.7.2014 after affording due
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
3 All. M/s. Maya Press Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Union Of India & Ors.
529
The court have not found any good ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge
dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner-appellants and imposing cost on both of them and the
same is hereby affirmed.

The special appeal, accordingly, stands dismissed.

Held: Para-

Case Law discussed:

A.Shanmugam v. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam,
(2012) 6

SCC 430 , Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2010) 2 SCC

114, V. Chandrashekaran & Anr. Vs.Administrative Officer & Ors., [(2012) 12 SCC 133]

(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.)

1. This intra court appeal under the Rules of the Court is directed against the judgment
and order dated 31.07.2015 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition No.
39655 of 2015.

2. First appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies
Act, 1956 having registered office at 281 Muthiganj, Allahabad and the second appellant is
the Director of the company. Both the appellants filed writ petition seeking a writ of
certiorari to quash the notice dated 22.05.2015 issued by Assistant Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner/Recovery Officer, respondent no. 3 herein under Section 8-B (i) of the EPF
& MP Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1952) and Income Tax Act, 1961 issued to
appellant no. 2 to show cause why he may not be detain in civil prison for failure to satisfy
the demand raised by Recovery Certificate RRC No. 5065 dated 20.04.2001, 40731 dated
08.04.2004, 45857 dated 27.04.2000 for a sum of Rs.71,81,297/- and has also failed to pay
the interest under Section 7Q of the Act, 1952.

3. An objection was raised by the respondents in the writ petition that the present
petition is the second petition for the same cause of action. Learned Single Judge after
hearing the matter on 20th July, 2015 passed the following order.

"By means of present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for rejecting the
impugned recovery notice dated 22.5.2015 under Section 8-B (i) of the EPF & MP Act,
1952 and the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued by the respondent no.3 to the petitioner no.2 and
further prayed for direction to the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation dated
11.1.2014and 4.7.2014 after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

Shri Amit Negi, learned counsel for the contesting respondents states that the
petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No.11936 of 2009 (M/s Maya Press (P) Ltd. & Anr.
V. Union of India & Ors.) for quashing the warrant of arrest dated 26.11.2008 issued by the
530 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Recovery Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Varanasi, pursuant to the
recovery certificate issued under Section 8-C of the Employees Provident Fund and Misc.
Provisions Act for recovery of Rs.71,81,297/-. This Court vide order dated 6.3.2009 had
disposed of the writ petition with following observations:-

"The petitioners will file an application under Section 8-E of the Employees
Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act before the authorised officer seeking time
to make the payment. This application shall be filed on or before the 31st March, 2009. If
such an application is filed, the authority will pass appropriate orders on the said application
expeditiously after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. In the meantime,
the warrant of arrest dated 26.11.2008 shall remain in abeyance till the disposal of the
petitioners' application provided the petitioners deposits a sum of Rs. Twenty lac within
four weeks from today.

The writ petition is disposed of.

A certified copy of this order shall be made available to the petitioners on payment
of usual charges within 24 hours.

Shri Negi, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is material
concealment in the matter. Nowhere it has been averred regarding the previous writ petition.
He further apprised to the Court that in compliance of the order passed by this Court the
petitioner had also not deposited Rs.20 lacs within stipulated time and had filed Special
Appeal No.670 of 2009 (M/s Maya Press (P) Ltd. & Anr. V. Union of India & Ors.)
assailing the aforesaid order dated 6.3.2009. The special appeal was dismissed by order
dated 6.5.2009. It is submitted that the petitioner had deliberately violated the earlier order
even though the same had attained finality on the ground that the appeal was also rejected
and as such no interference may be made in the present writ petition. This writ petition may
be treated as second writ petition for the same cause of action.

Shri Krishna Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for week's time to
obtain instructions in the matter. Put up this matter on 27.7.2015 as fresh."

4. When the matter was taken up subsequently, the petitioner-appellants made an
application with a prayer to dismiss the writ petition as withdrawn. The application was
supported by affidavit of Shri S.K. Bhattacharya alleging himself to be the pairokar of the
petitioners. In paragraph 2 of the affidavit, it was stated that upon inspection of the record, it
transpires that the previous litigation was done by the second petitioner personally and
deponent is a pairokar and had no knowledge of the previous litigation.

5. Learned Single Judge on a perusal of the record while returning a finding that the
petitioners in both the writ petitions are the same and affidavit of both the petition was
sworn of Shri S.K. Bhattacharya and, thus, the second petitioner and the deponent of the
writ petition were very well aware that an earlier writ petition was filed and was dismissed
and the judgment was also affirmed by dismissal of the special appeal, held that not only a
3 All. M/s. Maya Press Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Union Of India & Ors.
531
2nd writ petition based on the same cause of action has been filed without disclosing the facts
pertaining to the fact of filing and dismissal of the earlier writ petition and special appeal, a
false affidavit has also been filed in support of the withdrawal application as well.

6. Learned Single Judge on a detail examination of facts and after appreciating the
various case laws dismissed the writ petition with the heavy cost of Rs.1 lac to be recovered
from the second appellant and pairokar of the writ petition Shri S.K. Bhattacharya by the
District Magistrate, Allahabad.

7. The first submission advanced by Shri B.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted
by Shri Krishna Mohan for the appellant is that the learned Single Judge erred in holding
that writ petition was a second writ petition, inasmuch as the amount of recovery or the
period of dues even if may be same, the relief claimed in the earlier Writ Petition No. 11936
of 2009 was entirely different from the relief claimed in the subsequent writ petition and the
stage of recovery were also different. It is further submitted that two writ petitions
challenging the different notice of recovery cannot be said to be treated as writ petitions for
the same cause of action. Writ Petition No. 11936 of 2009 was filed by the present
appellants seeking the following reliefs.

"(i) call for record of the case and issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari quashing the impugned warrant of arrest dated 26.11.2008 (contained in Annexure
No. 8 to the writ petition) and further recovery proceedings in pursuance thereof.

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents not to execute the impugned warrant of arrest.

(iii) issue any other suitable order or direction as may be deemed to be necessary
under the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iv) award the costs of the writ petition to the petitioners."

8. Annexure 8, quashing of which, was sought in the said writ petition was a warrant of
arrest issued by Recovery Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organisation in respect of
failure on the part of the two petitioners to satisfy the demand made by certificate Nos.
5065, 8518, 40731 and 45857 dated 20.04.2001, 05.04.2002, 08.04.2004, and 17.04.2006
forwarded by the Authorised Officer for an amount of Rs.71,81,297/- towards outstanding
against appellant no. 1-company.

9. Before the learned Single Judge, liability was admitted and the stand taken was that
sometime be provided to secure the liability. Learned Single Judge disposed of the writ
petition vide judgment and order dated 06.03.2009 by making following observations.

"The petitioner admits his liability and only seeks indulgence of the Court to get
some breathing time to clear its liabilities.
532 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that has been brought on
record, I dispose of the petition with the following directions:

The petitioners will file an application under Section 8-E of the Employees
Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act before the authorised officer seeking time
to make the payment. This application shall be filed on or before the 31st March, 2009. If
such an application is filed, the authority will pass appropriate orders on the said application
expeditiously after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. In the meantime,
the warrant of arrest dated 26.11.2008 shall remain in abeyance till the disposal of the
petitioners' application provided the petitioners deposits a sum of Rs. Twenty lac within
four weeks from today.

The writ petition is disposed of.

A certified copy of this order shall be made available to the petitioners on payment
of usual charges within 24 hours."

10. The order was challenged in Special Appeal No. 670 of 2009, which was dismissed
by a Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 06.05.2009 by passing the following
order.

"Writ petitioner-appellant, aggrieved by the order dated 6th March, 2009 passed by
the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 11936 of 2009, has preferred this Appeal
under Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules.

On failure to make payment of the statutory dues under the Employees Provident
Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), the
Recovery Officer, Employees Provident Funds Organisation, Varanasi issued warrant of
arrest dated 26th November, 2008. The petitioner-appellant challenged the aforesaid warrant
of arrest in the writ petition which has given rise to the impugned order. Neither before the
learned Single Judge nor before us the writ petitioner-appellant has denied its liability and,
in fact, admits the liability.

In fact, before the learned Single Judge, it was the stand of the appellant that he be
given some breathing time to clear its liability. Taking note of the aforesaid stand, the
learned Single Judge gave liberty to the writ petitioner-appellant to make an application
under Section 8(E) of the Act seeking time to make payment by 31st March, 2009. It also
observed that if such an application is filed, the Competent Authority will pass an
appropriate order and in the meantime the warrant of arrest dated 26th November, 2008 shall
remain in abeyance till the disposal of the applicant's application provided it deposits a sum
of Rs. 20 lacs within four weeks from the date of the said order.

Writ petitioner-appellant instead of complying the said order has chosen to file this
appeal.
3 All. M/s. Maya Press Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Union Of India & Ors.
533

Mr. Ashok Khare appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the learned
Single Judge erred in holding that the application dated 30th April, 2003 was an application
under Section 8(E) of the Act and according to him, the said application was also under
Section 8(F) of the Act. We are of the opinion that the aforesaid submission has no bearing
to the facts of the present case. The petitioner has admitted its liability and the learned
Single Judge gave indulgence to him to file application seeking time to make the payment
and on condition of deposit of a sum of Rs. 20 lacs, directed that the warrant of arrest shall
be kept in abeyance.

The Writ Court is a Court of equity and in the face of the appellant's own
admission of its liability, any interference by this Court shall be inexpedient. We do not find
any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed accordingly."

11. Without disclosing the factum of filing the earlier Writ Petition No. 11936 of 2009
and its dismissal as well as filing and dismissal of Special Appeal No. 670 of 2009, the
present writ petition was filed. Incidently the affidavit in both the writ petition is of the same
person, i.e., Shri S.K. Bhattacharya, who happens to be the deponent of the affidavit filed in
support of the stay application in the present special appeal. Admittedly, in the subsequent
writ petition, there was not even a whisper with respect to dismissal of the first writ petition
and special appeal.

12. A perusal of the two writ petitions, which are on record of this special appeal as
Annexure to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application, we find that they are based
on the same cause of action, i.e., warrant of arrest, pursuant to the recovery certificate issued
under Section 8-c of the Act, 1952 for the same amount of recovery, i.e., Rs.71,81,297/-.
The date of warrant of arrest in the two writ petitions may be different, but there can be no
manner of doubt that both the writ petitions are based on the same cause of action and, thus,
the subsequent writ petition being a second writ petition for the same cause of action, is not
liable to be entertained and has rightly been dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

13. The argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that both
the writ petitions are based on different cause of action, is misconceived and liable to be
rejected.

14. The cause of action in both the writ petitions is the same, i.e., warrant of arrest
issued by Recovery Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organisation for failure on the part
of the applicant to satisfy the recovery certificate issued under Section 8-c of Act, 1952
towards outstanding statutory dues under the said Act.

15. The next submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that in view
of the subsequent developments, after dismissal of Writ Petition No. 11936 of 2009, which
was affirmed in appeal does not prevent the appellant from challenging the order passed in
proceedings subsequently and the said writ petition cannot be said to be a second writ
petition for the same relief.

16. This argument is again misconceived and has only been advanced to be rejected.
534 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

17. From a perusal of the pleadings of the writ petition, we do not find details of any
subsequent developments, which might have taken place after the dismissal of earlier Writ
Petition No. 11936 of 2009 on the basis of which it could be said that the fresh cause of
action has accrued to the petitioner to file another writ petition. In the absence of pleadings
in the writ petition in respect of subsequent developments, the argument has no legs to stand
and cannot be accepted.

18. The issue being well settled that a second writ petition for the same cause of action
is not liable to be entertained, we find no fault with the judgment of the learned Single Judge
in dismissing the writ petition.

19. Coming to the question of deliberate concealment of fact by the deponent in the
writ petition and making false averment in the affidavit filed in support of the withdrawal
application, again on a perusal of the record, we do not find any fault with the finding of the
learned Single Judge on this aspect.

20. Admittedly, the averments in the 1st Writ Petition No. 11936 of 2009 were
supported by the affidavit of Shri S.K. Bhattacharya as pairokar and the affidavit in support
of the subsequent writ petition was also filed by him. Thus, there is no justification in not
disclosing the fact of filing and dismissal of the earlier writ petition and special appeal.
Again in the affidavit filed by Shri S.K. Bhattacharya in support of the withdrawal
application, it was stated as under.

"1. That the deponent is the pairokar on behalf of the petitioners in this writ
petition. He had no knowledge of the previous litigations as such he could not brief the facts
to the petitioners counsel and as such is fully acquainted with the facts of the case deposed
to below.

2. That after getting intimations before this Hon'ble Court the deponent inspected
the records and came to know that the previous litigation were done by the petitioner no. 2
personally, who is aged about 79 years and has been keeping ailing health and is unable to
move from Kolkata to Allahabad."

21. The falsity in the statement made by Shri S.K. Bhattarcharya in the affidavit filed in
support of the withdrawal application becomes writ large from a perusal of the aforesaid
averments. Even if it is presumed for the sake of argument that he forgot the fact of filing
and dismissal of the earlier writ petition and special appeal, but once it is asserted that the
deponent inspected the record, there was absolutely no reason or occasion to make the
abovequoted averment in the said affidavit, it is a deliberate attempt on his part and the
allegations made in the affidavit are patently false.

22. It is crystal clear that the deponent deliberately did not disclose the fact of filing and
dismissal of the earlier writ petition and special appeal in the subsequent writ petition and
when this fact came to the notice of the learned Single Judge, on an objection being raised
3 All. M/s. Maya Press Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Union Of India & Ors.
535
by the respondents, he again made totally false allegations in the affidavit filed in support of
the application to dismiss the writ petition as withdrawn. Hence, we find no flaw in the
judgment of the learned Single Judge holding that the appellant and the deponent misused
the process of this Court, firstly in order to procure an order by concealing material facts in
the writ petition and subsequently filing a false affidavit to save himself from the wreath of
this Court.

23. Learned Single Judge has relied upon various pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex
Court laying down that if a litigant is found guilty of concealment of material facts or
making an attempt to pollute the pure stream of justice, the Court not only has the right but a
duty to deny relief to such a person. A litigant, who seeks shelter of falsehood,
misrepresentation and suppression of facts in invoking the extraordinary equitable
jurisdiction of this Court conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not liable
for any indulgence.

24. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A. Shanmugam v. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula
Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam, (2012) 6 SCC 430 held as
under:-

"43.2. Every litigant is expected to state truth before the law court whether it is
pleadings, affidavits or evidence. Dishonest and unscrupulous litigants have no place in law
courts.

43.3. The ultimate object of the judicial proceedings is to discern the truth and do
justice. It is imperative that pleadings and all other presentations before the court should be
truthful.

43.4. Once the court discovers falsehood, concealment, distortion, obstruction or
confusion in pleadings and documents, the court should in addition to full restitution impose
appropriate costs. The court must ensure that there is no incentive for wrongdoer in the
temple of justice. Truth is the foundation of justice and it has to be the common endeavour
of all to uphold the truth and no one should be permitted to pollute the stream of justice.

43.5. It is the bounden obligation of the court to neutralise any unjust and/or
undeserved benefit or advantage obtained by abusing the judicial process."

25. Again in the case of Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2010) 2 SCC 114,
Hon'ble Apex Court noticed that an altogether new creed of dishonest litigants, have
flooded the Court. The quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in
litigation do not hesitate to seek shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of
facts in the course of court proceedings.

26. Supreme Court in the case of V. Chandrashekaran & Anr. Vs. Administrative
Officer & Ors., [(2012) 12 SCC 133] held that a petition or affidavit containing misleading
536 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
or inaccurate statement amounts to abuse of process of Court, a litigant cannot take
inconsistent positions. In paragraph 45 of the report, Hon'ble Apex Court held as under.

"45. The judicial process cannot become an instrument of oppression or abuse, or
a means in the process of the court to subvert justice, for the reason that the court exercises
its jurisdiction, only in furtherance of justice. The interests of justice and public interest
coalesce, and therefore, they are very often one and the same. A petition or an affidavit
containing a misleading and/or an inaccurate statement, only to achieve an ulterior purpose,
amounts to an abuse of process of the court."

27. For the aforesaid facts and discussions, we do not find any good ground to interfere
with the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the petitionerappellants and imposing cost on both of them and the same is hereby affirmed.

28. The special appeal, accordingly, stands dismissed.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.12.2015

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.
THE HON'BLE SHASHI KANT, J.

Special Appeal No. - 1888 of 2012

Amar Nath Upadhyay ...Appellant
Versus
Chairman & Managing.Director (Competent Authority), C.B.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for Appellant:-
Sri Govind Krishna

Counsel for Respondents:-
Sri V. Pratap

This Special Appeal challenges the validity and correctness of the impugned judgment and
order dated 20.11.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
58982 of 2009, Amar Nath Upadhyaya versus Chairman&Managing Director, Central Bank
of India and others whereby the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed.

A perusal of Annexure to the special appeal shows that The difference of salary for the
years 1995, 1996 and 1997 has Been paid to the appellant in 2006. The case of the
appellant Was decided vide judgment and order dated 11.4.2002, he Would be entitled for
payment of normal interest accrues on the Amount of arrears of salary from the date of
judgment i.e. 11.4.2002 to 2006. The judgment and order dated 20.11.2009 Of the
learned Single Judge is modified to the extent that the Appellant shall be paid simple
interest at the rate 6% per annum From the date of judgment i.e.11.4.2002 to 2006
accrues on the Amount of arrears of salary.The appeal is allowed. No Order as to costs.