Aggarwal Structural Consultants ... vs Union Of India
2009 Latest Caselaw 2051 Del

 *         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                 Date of Reserve: May 08, 2009
                                 Date of Order: May 14, 2009

+ IA No.10703/2007 in OMP No.326/2007

%                                             14.05.2009

     AGGARWAL STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS (P) LTD.
                                                .... Petitioner
                 Through: Mr. Anil Aggarwal, Adv.,
                          Petitioner in person.

     Versus


     UNION OF INDIA                            ..... Respondent
                   Through:        Ms. Kavita Soni, Proxy counsel

     JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.   Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
     judgment?

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.   Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

     JUDGMENT

1. By this application under Section 340 Cr.P.C., the

petitioner asked this Court to record a finding that the respondent

appears to have committed offences as stated under Section 195

Cr.P.C. and to make a complaint against the respondent so that the

respondent can be tried for the offences allegedly committed by the

respondent.

2. The brief facts relevant for purpose of deciding this

application are that the petitioner made an application under

Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act alleging that his

contract of engaging him as a Consultant was illegally terminated by

the respondent and till the arbitration proceedings were not

decided, the Court should issue an injunction restraining the

respondent from taking services of another Consultant. It is

submitted by the applicant that during pendency of this petition

under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act the respondent,

Executive Engineer Mr. Shailash filed a false affidavit about issuance

of fresh tenders and he thereby caused hindrance in the course of

justice. Had the Executive Engineer not filed false affidavit, this

Court would have allowed him to continue as a Consultant.

3. This Court had dismissed the application of the

petitioner under Section 9 vide order dated 13th March, 2008

observing that the contract between the applicant and the

respondent was one whereby the applicant was to provide services

to the respondent and it was settled principle of law that whenever

a contract is determinable in its terms, specific performance cannot

be granted under Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act and extension

of that principle applies in case of the injunction as well. Therefore,

injunction was not admissible wherever specific performance is not

available. The contract between the applicant and the respondent

contained express condition which made it determinable. The Court

therefore held that the petition seeking grant of an injunction that

the applicant's contract should continue was unmerited and

dismissed the petition.

4. It is apparent that the petition filed by the petitioner was

not maintainable on the face of it and reference to any document

was not necessary in this case, nor the Court made reference to

affidavit filed by the Executive Engineer.

5. A perusal of Section 340 Cr.P.C. would show that the

Court can make a complaint if the Court is of the opinion that it was

expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made

into commission of any offences referred to in Clause (b) of sub-

Section 1 of Section 195. The offences as enumerated in Section

195(1)(b) are offences under Sections 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to

211 and 228, when such offences are alleged to have been

committed in relation to any proceedings in the Court. Section 193

is regarding punishment for false evidence as envisaged under

Section 191. In the present case no evidence was recorded in the

matter. The question of giving false evidence therefore does not

arise. Section 194 is regarding fabricating false evidence with the

intent to procure conviction of capital offences. This Section is not

at all attracted. Similar is the provision of Section 195 which is also

not attracted. Section 196 is using evidence known to be false. In

this case, no evidence was taken or used by the Court. Similarly,

other offences as stated in Section 195 are not attracted in this

case.

6. I consider that the present application has been made

by the applicant not to uphold the majesty of justice but for grinding

his own axe. None of the provisions under Section 195 Cr.P.C. were

attracted in this case, since this Court was only deciding an interim

application and recording of any evidence was not necessary. The

Court has also not placed reliance on affidavits or stand taken by

the respondent in the so-called affidavit as alleged by the applicant.

I consider it is not a case where the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C.

should be invoked. The application has no force and is hereby

dismissed.

May 14, 2009                        SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
ak