[2025:RJ-JP:20225] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 6/1994 The State of Rajasthan ----Defendant-Appellant Versus M/s Kamani Engineering Corporation Ltd., Jhotwara, Jaipur, having its registered office at Kamani Chambers, Ramji Bhai Kamani Road, Ballard Estate, Bombay-400038 ----Respondent (Plaintiff) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Zakir Hussain, AGC For Respondent(s) : Ms. Alisha Chopra and Ms. Aarti Sharma for Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Judgment 28/03/2025 1. The instant S.B. Civil First Appeal is preferred by the appellant-defendant aggrieved from judgment and decree dated 16.08.1993 in Civil Suit No.296/90(266/81) passed by learned Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-State submitted that the respondent-plaintiff has filed a suit on ground that the Mining Engineer has demanded money, due on other entity and in pursuance to demand notice, respondent plaintiff has deposited the amount to clear dues. He further submitted that the plaintiff has voluntarily deposited under the demand notice and the trial Court without considering that there is no proof of compulsion has directed to refund after passing a decree. He further submitted that if there is any liability and a demand is [2025:RJ-JP:20225] (2 of 7) [CFA-6/1994] raised on basis of liability then same is justified. He further submitted that for demand and recovery of any statutory dues, filing of a civil suit is barred and not maintainable. He further submitted that the trial Court has committed serious error while drawing a wrong conclusion from the evidence on record. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff and defended the decree and submitted that the trial Court has not committed any error while allowing the suit of respondent-plaintiff. She further submitted that there were two companies KEC and KIC and the demand was raised against KIC but a pressure is mounted upon present respondent-Plaintiff Kamani Engineering Corporation Ltd. (KEC) and under the pressure of initiating proceeding under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, the plaintiff has deposited the amount legally dues against KIC. She further submitted that to recover the deposited amount along with expenses and interest, a suit was filed against the defendant and same was rightly decreed by the trial Court. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The respondent-plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of ₹1,21,500/- on the ground that the defendant has made a recovery of dues of another Company KIC from plaintiff. The defendant has filed a written statement with counter-claim. On basis of pleadings of the parties, nine issues were framed. The plaintiff has examined as PW-1 Bharat Kumar whereas the defendant has examined DW-1 Onkarnath and DW-2 Prakash Chand. The plaintiff has exhibited 15 documents whereas the [2025:RJ-JP:20225] (3 of 7) [CFA-6/1994] defendants have exhibited 22 documents. The trial Court has decided issue Nos.1 to 4 in favour of plaintiff. The trial Court has also also decided issue Nos.5 and 6 in favour of plaintiff but decided issue Nos.7 and 8 against the defendant. As a result, the suit of plaintiff was decreed but counter-claim of defendant – appellant was dismissed. The decree was passed in following words:- “fMdzh oknh dk okn fo#) izfroknh e; [kpkZ fuEu izdkj fMdzh fd;k tkrk gS o izfroknh dk izfrokn fo#) oknh e; [kpkZ [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gS%& 1- izfroknh oknh dks ewy tek jkf”k #i;s 94]717 iSls 69 rFkk bl ij rkjh[k nkok rd C;kt #i;s 26]782 iSls 31 dqy #i;s ,d yk[k bDdhl gtkj ikap lkS vnk djsxkA 2-+ izfroknh oknh dks rkjh[k okn fnukad 30@5@81 ls rkolwyh ewy jkf”k #i;s 94]717-69 iSls dh dqy jkf”k ij 9% okf’kZd C;kt vnk djsxkA 3- [kpkZ okn o izfrokn (Counter Claim) izfroknh oknh dks vnk djsxkA” 6. There is no dispute about issue No.1, therefore, findings on issue No.1 is hereby affirmed. Issue Nos.2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 are related to each other, therefore, we are considering these issues altogether. 7. PW-1 Bharat Kumar was examined on behalf of plaintiff who is an Officer of plaintiff-Company and according to him, Kamani Engineering Corporation Ltd. (KEC) is different entity than Kamani Industrial Corporation Ltd. (KIC). The admission of PW-1 shows that KEC has made communication for the mines in the name of KIC. The admission also indicated that a writ petition was also [2025:RJ-JP:20225] (4 of 7) [CFA-6/1994] filed before the High Court by KEC and this witness was present on behalf of KEC. This writ petition was dismissed, which pertains to mines relating to Nathara Ki Pal and a SLP was also dismissed. This also indicate that another writ petition was also filed which was withdrawn. The admission also indicate that the work relating to Chomu mines was initiated by PR Kamani who is Director of KEC. The admission also indicate that KEC has sought assistance from the Government. 8. On the contrary, DW-1 Onkarnath, who was geologist was examined by the Department appellant. The witness exhibited several documents showing communication between the parties about these two mines. DW-2 Prakash Chand who is S. E. (Mines) also examined to support the case of appellant-defendant. 9. A perusal of evidence of both the parties and documents indicate that the dues which were deposited by plaintiff were recoverable against mines and these mines were in the name of KIC. The documents available on record clearly reflect that KEC (respondent-plaintiff) has made all communication on behalf of KIC about these mines rather it indicate these mines were in fact operated by KEC. The documents were also sent to defendant with Board Resolution to transfer said mines. The documents particularly Ex.A-3, Ex.A-4, Ex.A-5, Ex.A-6, Ex.A-7 and other documents clearly reflect that the mines were operated by KEC (plaintiff). On basis of admission of PW-1 in his cross-examination and the documents as submitted by defendants in their evidence, the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable and the trial Court without considering these documents had decreed the suit only on ground that KEC and KIC were different entitles. [2025:RJ-JP:20225] (5 of 7) [CFA-6/1994] 10. Here in this case, legally KEC and KIC were different entitles but record proves that mining operation was de-facto controlled by plaintiff. The letters on record sent to concerned Department or the State Government clearly reflect that it was plaintiff who was in fact beneficiary or operator of mines. The plaintiff in pursuant to avoid action against him has deposited the dues against these mines. 11. Once a resolution has been passed and same is placed on record and in pursuant to resolution, an agreement was entered between two Companies i.e. KIC and KEC about transfer of mines and a request is made about transfer of mines, then the transfer is a formal process and same is processed in accordance with Rules but practically the plaintiff has taken charge of mines, which is evident from admission of PW-1. 12. Now the plaintiff taking shield of two different entities has filed a suit for recovery which is not maintainable due to rule of estoppel and the trial Court while deciding issue Nos.2 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff, has committed serious error as the findings were recorded overlooking the documentary evidence on record. Once the documents are on record and it is established that the plaintiff was in fact operator of these mines and ripping all benefits from these mines, then all liabilities lies upon him. In case of any dues against the mines, the beneficiary is also liable to make payment and if any letter is sent for recovery then the plaintiff has an option to challenge said actions before proper forums. The plaintiff has also filed writ petition before this Court and ultimately failed in getting any favourable response as these writ petition(s) [2025:RJ-JP:20225] (6 of 7) [CFA-6/1994] were dismissed and in one case, the SLP was also dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court. 13. Having considered the material available on record, the trial Court has committed serious error while deciding the issue Nos.2 to 4 in favour of plaintiff. Therefore, the findings of trial Court are perverse and contrary to record and same is liable to be set aside. 14. As regard to findings on issue Nos.7 and 8 is concerned, when we consider the evidence of DW-1 and DW-2, then it is also on record that defendant have not made KIC as a party. In any case, the State has a methodology to recover State dues as an arrears of land revenue, then it can act as per law. The evidence of DW-1 and DW-2 is not sufficient to prove further recovery of ₹94,717.08/- from plaintiff and trial Court has not committed any error while deciding issue No.7 and 8 against the defendant. The issue Nos.5 and 6 were not seriously contested by learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, the findings on issue Nos.5 and 6 are hereby affirmed. 15. The findings on issue Nos.2 to 4 are liable to be set aside and as a result, the appeal preferred by appellant-defendant is liable to be allowed. 16. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the instant Civil First Appeal is partly allowed and the judgment and decree dated 16.08.1993 in Civil Suit No.296/1990 (266/81) is hereby set aside. As a result, the suit for recovery filed by respondent- plaintiff is hereby dismissed. 17. Misc. Application, if any, stands disposed of. 18. No order as to costs. [2025:RJ-JP:20225] (7 of 7) [CFA-6/1994] 19. Decree be drawn accordingly. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/145