# M/s Willard India Limited v. Union of India and others

- **Citation:** (2003) 3 ILRA 775
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-05-19
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21661 of 2003
- **Bench:** M. Katju, R.S. Tripathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-willard-india-limited-v-union-of-india-and-others-40199
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Sri A.K. Singh
Sri Tarun Varma
Sri B.N. Singh
S.S.C.

Debts
due
to
Banks
and
Financial
Institution Act, 1993- Section 19- Award
of the Tribunal given at Kolkata validity
thereof
cannot
be
challenged
at
Allahabad before High Court- No.

Held- Para 5

The prayer that Rule 6 be declared ultra
vires Section 19 of the Act is nothing but
a prayer for declaration. Hence without a
prayer for a consequential relief, such
declaration can not be granted. As
regards, the consequential relief, which
is contained in relief (ii) of the petition it
is really a relief for a prohibition though
as a declaration, as already observed by
us above, such relief can be claimed
before the Calcutta High Court and not
before this Court.
Case referred to:
AIR 1951 SC 41
AIR 1968 SC 381
AIR 1953 All. 477
AIR 1962 Allahabad 187
AIR 1978 Alld. 386
2002 UPLBEC 1789

## Text

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] M/s Willard India Ltd. V. Union of India and others
775
12. The impugned order dated
26.08.2000 rejecting representation of the
petitioner on the ground that the policy
decision framed in pursuance of judgment
of this Court does not cover the case of
the petitioner after five years of service in
Intelligence department is arbitrary. The
petitioner under the policy decision of the
government dated 24.10.1999 can opt for
transfer to Civil Police. The criteria laid
down in the policy has not been
considered in the order dated 26.08.2000
and it is totally silent about transfer of
Inspectors who give their option for
repatriation to Civil Police after specified
period
of
five
years
from
Local
Intelligence Unit.

13. For the reasons given above, the
writ petition is allowed and the impugned
order dated 26.08.2000 (Annexure no. 4
to the writ petition) passed by the
respondent no. 2 is quashed. The
respondents are directed to transfer the
petitioner to Civil police forthwith from
local Intelligence Unit preferably within a
period of six weeks from the date of
production of a certified copy of the order
of this Court No order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.5.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE R.S. TRIPATHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21661 of 2003

M/s Willard India Limited
...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Yashwant Varma
Sri R.N. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.K. Singh
Sri Tarun Varma
Sri B.N. Singh
S.S.C.

Debts
due
to
Banks
and
Financial
Institution Act, 1993- Section 19- Award
of the Tribunal given at Kolkata validity
thereof
cannot
be
challenged
at
Allahabad before High Court- No.

Held- Para 5

The prayer that Rule 6 be declared ultra
vires Section 19 of the Act is nothing but
a prayer for declaration. Hence without a
prayer for a consequential relief, such
declaration can not be granted. As
regards, the consequential relief, which
is contained in relief (ii) of the petition it
is really a relief for a prohibition though
as a declaration, as already observed by
us above, such relief can be claimed
before the Calcutta High Court and not
before this Court.
Case referred to:
AIR 1951 SC 41
AIR 1968 SC 381
AIR 1953 All. 477
AIR 1962 Allahabad 187
AIR 1978 Alld. 386
2002 UPLBEC 1789

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. Heard Sri R.N. Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.K. Singh
for the Union of India, and Sri Tarun
Varma, Counsel for the Allahabad Bank.

2. The petitioner has prayed for an
appropriate writ, order direction declaring
the provisions of Rule 6 (1) of the Debts
Recovery
Tribunal
(Procedure)
Amendment Rules 6 (1) of Debts
Recovery
Tribunal
(Procedure)
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
776 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
Amendment Rules, 2003 as being ultra
vires Section 19 of the Recovery ojf
Debts Due to Banks and Financial
Institutions Act, 1993. The petitioner has
also prayed for an appropriate writ, order
or direction declaring proceedings filed
by the respondent no. 2, Allahabad Bank
before the Debt Recovery Tribunal,
Kolkata as without jurisdiction.

3. The petitioner is a Company
registered under the Indian Companies
Act. The respondent, Allahabad Bank
filed an application before Debt Recovery
Tribunal, West Bengal at Kolkata under
Section 19 of the aforesaid Act claiming a
sum of Rs. 5,09,76,803/- as principal
amount and payable with interest in the
alleged capacity of debenture holders and
debenture trustee. True copy of the
application under Section 19 filed before
the Debt Recovery Tribunal, West Bengal
at Kolkata dated 17.12.1999 has been
filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

4. In our opinion, this petition is
liable to be dismissed on the preliminary
point as this Court has no jurisdiction in
the matter at all and it is Calcutta High
Court which has the jurisdiction. The
proceedings are pending before Debt
Recovery Tribunal. West Bengal at
Kolkata and the petitioner really wants a
writ
of
prohibition
against
those
proceedings, although that prayer has not
been specifically mentioned in the prayer
of the writ petition. The difference
between a writ of certiorari and a writ of
prohibition is that a writ of certiorari is
filed after the impugned order is passed
whereas a writ of prohibition is filed
before an order is passed. Thus, a writ of
prohibition is filed when a proceeding
before an inferior Court or Tribunal is
pending and it is alleged that they are
without jurisdiction. Thus, the relief really
claimed by the petitioner in this writ
petition is the relief of prohibition to
prohibit the Debt Recovery Tribunal,
West Bengal at Kolkatta from proceeding
with the case before it. In our opinion,
such a writ petition should be filed before
the Calcutta High Court, which, in our
opinion, alone has the jurisdiction to grant
such relief. Learned counsel for the
petitioner then submitted that we may
ignore the prayer for writ of prohibition
and we should consider the petitioner's
prayer for declaring Rule 6-1 of the Debts
Recovery
Tribunal
(Procedure)
Amendment Rules, 2003 as being ultra
vires Section 19 of the Act, 1993. In our
opinion, this would really be a prayer for
a declaration only and it is well settled
that a writ petition does not lie only for
giving a declaration. In Charanjeet Lal
Versus Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41,
while considering the scope of a petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the Supreme Court observed. -

"A proceeding under this Article can
not really have any affinity to what is
known as a declaratory suit. The first
prayer made in the petition seeks relief in
the shape of a declaration that the Act is
invalid and is apparently inappropriate to
an application under Article 32. "

In Makkhan Singh V. State of Panjab
and Haryana AIR 1964 SC 381 (vide para
45), it was held that a mere declaration is
outside the purview of proceedings under
Article 226 of the Constitution. A full
Bench of this Court in Maqbool Unissa
and others v. Union of India AIR 1953
Allahabad 477, has held that the powers
of issuing writs, orders or directions under
Article 226 of the Constitution should not
be utilized for giving what is in essence a
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Devendrajeet Vadra V. State of U.P. and others
777
declaratory relief. Similar view has been
taken in two other full Bench decisions of
this Court in D.G. Vidyalaya Association
Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1962, Allahabad
187 and Sheo Kumar V. State of U.P. AIR
1978 Allahabad 386. Similar view has
been taken by the division Bench decision
of this Court in Green Field Corporation
Limited
and
another
versus
U.P.
Financial Corporation 2002 UPLBEC,
1789 vide para 12.

5. The prayer that Rule 6 be
declared ultra vires Section 19 of the Act
is nothing but a prayer for declaration.
Hence
without
a
prayer
for
a
consequential relief, such declaration can
not
be
granted.
As
regards,
the
consequential relief, which is contained in
relief (ii) of the petition it is really a relief
for a prohibition though as a declaration,
as already observed by us above, such
relief can be claimed before the Calcutta
High Court and not before this Court.

6. For the reasons given above, this
petition stands dismissed but with liberty
to the petitioner to approach the Calcutta
High Court for appropriate relief.

7. We have not gone into the merits
of the case we have only dismissed this
petition on a preliminary point.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 7.7.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE R.S. TRIPATHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26386 of 2003

Devendrajeet Vadra

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri D.K. Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution
of
India-Article
226maintainability-writ
petition
against
private
body-held-not
maintainablepetition dismissed.

Held- Para 2

In our opinion this writ petition is not
maintainable as the respondent no. 3 is a
private body being a Company registered
under the Indian Companies Act.
Case law referred:
2003 (1) AWC 503, 2003 ALJ 980

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. The petitioner has prayed for a
mandamus directing the respondent no. 3.
M/s Motion Pictures Association, Mangal
Market, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi to
treat the petitioner as one of its members
as per Article of Association.

2. In our opinion this writ petition is
not maintainable as the respondent no. 3
is a private body being a Company
registered under the Indian Companies
Act.