Singh, General Power of Attorney, Section 5, Chandigarh of Attorney, Section 5 v. Karamjit Singh

PANKAJ JAIN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Advocate for the appellant Mr. Gurmohan Singh Bedi, Advocate for the appellant for the respondent in FAO-2053-1998 and for the respondent in FAO-632-1998. for the appellant Mr. H.S. Dhandi, Advocate for the appellant and for the respondent in FAO-632-1998 and for the respondent in FAO-2053-1998. PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) PANKAJ JAIN [1] These two cross-appeals filed under Section 142 (3) of Sikh appeals filed under Section 142 (3) of The Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 are directed against judgment dated 29.01.1998 passed Gurdwara Act, 1925 are directed against judgment dated 29.01.1998 passed Gurdwara Act, 1925 are directed against judgment dated 29.01.1998 passed Gurdwara Act, 1925 are directed against judgment dated 29.01.1998 passed n the petition filed by by Sikh Gurdwara Judicial Commission, Amritsar on the petition filed by by Sikh Gurdwara Judicial Commission, Amritsar by Sikh Gurdwara Judicial Commission, Amritsar SGPC seeking recovery of ₹33,525/-. SGPC seeking recovery of 2 FAO-2053 & 632 2053 & 632-1998 (O&M) [2] SGPC approached Commission under Section 14 2 of the Act, approached Commission under Section 142 of the Act Karamjit Singh was appointed as Manager of claiming that respondent-Karamjit Singh was appointed as Manager of Karamjit Singh was appointed as Manager of claiming that respondent Gurdwara, Dehra Sahib Patshahi 6, Daroli Bhai, Tehsil Moga, District Gurdwara, Dehra Sahib Patshahi 6, Daroli Bhai, Tehsil Moga, District Gurdwara, Dehra Sahib Patshahi 6, Daroli Bhai, Tehsil Moga, District Gurdwara, Dehra Sahib Patshahi 6, Daroli Bhai, Tehsil Moga, District Faridkot on 21.12.1984. 20 ½ acres of land belonging to Gurdwara Faridkot on 21.12.1984. 2 of land belonging to Gurdwara was 86 for an amount leased out by respondent on 11.05.1986 for the year 1985-86 for an amount leased out by respondent on 11.05.1986 for the year 1985 leased out by respondent on 11.05.1986 for the year 1985 of ₹33,525/ of land comprised in plot No.1 was leased out to 33,525/-. 05 acres of land comprised in plot No.1 was leased out to of land comprised in plot No.1 was leased out to Jalaur Singh for a lease amount of ₹ 8285 Jalaur Singh for 285/-. 5.5 acres of land comprised ed in plot No.2 was leased out to Jalaur Singh for plot No.2 was leased out t o Jalaur Singh for a lease amount of ₹9000/ 9000/-. of land was leased out to Karnail Singh for of land was leased out to Karnail Singh for Plot No.3 measuring 05 acres of land was leased out to Karnail Singh for Plot No.3 measuring 05 acre ₹9250/-. 05 acre of land comprised in plot No.4 was leased out to Nirbhai . 05 acres of land comprised in plot No.4 was leased out to Nirbhai of land comprised in plot No.4 was leased out to Nirbhai Singh for an amount of ₹ 7050/-. Singh for an amount of [3] e was granted through auction. Respondent failed to The lease was granted through auction. Respondent failed to e was granted through auction. Respondent failed to recover the payment from lessee(s) at the time of auction recover the payment from Repeated at the time of auction. Repeated amount from the communications were sent to respondent to realise the amount from the communications were sent to respondent to communications were sent to respondent to lessees. Pre

01.01.1989 brought to the notice of Pre-auditor in his report dated 01.01.1989 brought to the notice of 01.01.1989 brought to the notice of SGPC that even though respondent has realised the amount of ₹33,525/ SGPC that even though respondent has SGPC that even though respondent has 33,525/- from the lessee(s) but the same has not been deposited. As per SGPC, the lessee(s), but the same has not been deposited. As per SGPC, but the same has not been deposited. As per SGPC, failed respondent admitted the same in his statement dated 29.12.1988 but failed respondent admitted the same in his statement dated 29.12.1988 respondent admitted the same in his statement dated 29.12.1988 auditor at the time of produce cash book or cash receipt before pre-auditor at the time of produce cash book or cash receipt before pre to produce cash book or cash receipt before pre checking. A legal notice dated 15.03.1989 checking. to deposit legal notice dated 15.03.1989 was served upon him to deposit the lease money in the Gurdwara fund the lease money fund within 15 days. Despite that espite that the respondent pondent failed to deposit the amount. [4] The petition was contested by the respondent. He denied The petition was contested by the respondent. He denied The petition was contested by the respondent. He denied employer- ommission has employee relationship and claimed that Judicial Commission has -employee relationship and claimed that no jurisdiction to entertain the petition as he was never employed as no jurisdiction to entertain the petition as he was never employed as no jurisdiction to entertain the petition as he was never employed as no jurisdiction to entertain the petition as he was never employed as 3 FAO-2053 & 632 2053 & 632-1998 (O&M) her claimed that Manager under SGPC. He never drew any salary. He further claimed that Manager under SGPC. He never drew any salary. He furt Manager under SGPC. He never drew any salary. He furt an Inspector SGPC was managing the agricultural land and he Inspector appointed by SGPC was managing the agricultural land and he SGPC was managing the agricultural land and he has no reason to misappropriate the amount of ₹33,525/-. has no reason to misappropriate the amount of has no reason to misappropriate the amount of [5] Commission vide impugned order held that the respondent was Commission vide impugned order held that the respondent was Commission vide impugned order held that the respondent was the said finding, SGPC relied upon employee of SGPC. In order to arrive at the said finding, SGPC relied upon employee of SGPC. In order to arrive at employee of SGPC. In order to arrive at statement made by respondent before Judicial Commission in case No.13 of statement made by respondent before Judicial Commission in case No.13 of statement made by respondent before Judicial Commission in case No.13 of statement made by respondent before Judicial Commission in case No.13 of 1986 titled as ‘SGPC, Amritsar versus Mit Singh etc 1986 titled as ‘ .” The plea raised by Mit Singh etc.” The plea raised by respondent with respect to his illiteracy respondent with respect to his illiteracy was also falsified by testimony was also falsified by testimony of Paramjit Singh Walia, who proved his signatures in Gurmukhi Paramjit Singh Walia, who proved his signatures in PW6-Paramjit Singh Walia, who proved his signatures in urmukhi. Appointment letter of Karamjit Singh has come on record as Exhibit P12 Appointment letter of Karamjit Singh has come on record as Exhibit P12 Appointment letter of Karamjit Singh has come on record as Exhibit P12 Appointment letter of Karamjit Singh has come on record as Exhibit P12 and the same stands proved by examining PW and the same stands proved by , Assistant examining PW5-Kulwant Singh, Assistant Nirbhai Singh Secretary, SGPC. Relying upon the admission made by RW1-Nirbhai Singh Secretary, SGPC. Relying upon the admission ma Secretary, SGPC. Relying upon the admission ma and RW2 - Karnail Singh-the lessee(s) regarding payment of lease amount to ) regarding payment of lease amount to Commission allowed the petition filed by Makhan Singh, Patwari, Judicial Commission allowed the petition filed by Commission allowed the petition filed by Makhan Singh, Patwari SGPC in part and decreed the same against the respondent for an amount of SGPC in part and decreed the same against the respondent for an amount of SGPC in part and decreed the same against the respondent for an amount of SGPC in part and decreed the same against the respondent for an amount of ₹17,225/- - along with interest @ 12% per annum disqualified from along with interest @ 12% per annum. He was disqualified from any notified Sikh Gurdwara or Board or becoming a holding any post in any notified Sikh Gurdwara or Board or becoming a any notified Sikh Gurdwara or Board or becoming a holding any post member of any Committee of any notified Sikh Gurdwara or member of member of any Committee of any notified Sikh Gurdwara or member of member of any Committee of any notified Sikh Gurdwara or member of member of any Committee of any notified Sikh Gurdwara or member of Board in future. Board in future. [6] rties and have carefully gone I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone I have heard counsel for the pa through records of the case. through records of the case. [7] The allegation against the respondent is that he was working as The allegation against the respondent is that he was working as The allegation against the respondent is that he was working as Manager and managing affairs of Gurdwara Sahib. 20.5 acres of land Manager and managing affairs of Gurdwara Sahib. 20.5 acres of land Manager and managing affairs of Gurdwara Sahib. 20.5 acres of land Manager and managing affairs of Gurdwara Sahib. 20.5 acres of land Karamjit belonging to Gurdwara was leased out. As per SGPC, respondent-Karamjit belonging to Gurdwara was leased out. As per SGPC, belonging to Gurdwara was leased out. As per SGPC, but failed to deposit the Singh though accepted the amount from lessees, but failed to deposit the Singh though accepted the amount from lessees Singh though accepted the amount from lessees 4 FAO-2053 & 632 2053 & 632-1998 (O&M) Singh and Karnail same with SGPC. Two of the lessees, namely Nirbhai Singh and Karnail same with SGPC. Two of the lessees, namely Nirbhai same with SGPC. Two of the lessees, namely Nirbhai as RW1 & RW2 and deposed that they paid lease amount Singh appeared as RW1 & RW2 and deposed that they paid lease amount as RW1 & RW2 and deposed that they paid lease amount Singh appear but to Makhan Singh, Patwari as auction not to respondent-Karamjit Singh, but to Makhan Singh, Patwari as auction but to Makhan Singh, Patwari as auction not to respondent and not the was conducted in the presence of Makhan Singh, Patwari and not the was conducted in the presence of Makhan Singh, Patwari was conducted in the presence of Makhan Singh, Patwari respondent. In these circumstances, the Judicial Commission allowed respondent. In these circumstances, the Judicial Commission respondent. In these circumstances, the Judicial Commission petition in part. petition in part. [8] the Commission, Pure finding of facts have been recorded by the Commission, Pure finding of facts have been recorded by after appreciating the entire evidence threadbare after appreciating the entire evidence . The judgment passed by threadbare. The judgment passed by the Commission needs no interference. the Commission needs no interference. [9] In view of the above, finding no merit in the present appeals. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present appeals. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present appeals. The same are ordered to be dismissed. The same are ordered to be [10] iscellaneous application(s), All pending miscellaneous application(s), iscellaneous application(s), if any, stands if any, stands if any, stands disposed off. disposed off [11] Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE

22.05.2026 22.05.2026 ‘R. Sharma' Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No