Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 6132 of 2005
PETITIONER:
Tata Chemicals Ltd.
RESPONDENT:
State of Gujarat and Anr.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/10/2005
BENCH:
G.P. Mathur & P.K. Balasubramanyan
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10973 of 2003)
G.P. MATHUR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred against the
order dated 19th June, 2003 of High Court of Gujarat, by which the
appeal filed by the appellant under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC was
admitted, but no interim order was granted in its favour.
3. The appellant filed Special Civil Suit No.4 of 2000 in the Court
of Civil Judge (Sr. Division) at Jam Khambhalia against the State of
Gujarat and Taluka Development Officer, Taluka Panchayat, Dwarka
praying that a decree be passed declaring the notice of demand dated
18th November, 1999 for Rs.62,70,123.89 issued by second defendant
as illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently null and void and
for a further declaration that the appellant is entitled to pay at the rates
as stipulated in the deed of conveyance dated 11th February, 1970. A
further relief is sought that the defendants be restrained from taking
any steps for recovery of the amount of Rs.62,70,123.89 on the basis
of the aforesaid notice. In the suit the appellant filed an application
under Order XXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC praying that the defendants,
their agents and servants be restrained from taking any coercive steps
for recovery of the aforesaid dues on the basis of impugned notice of
demand dated 18th November, 1999. The defendant No.2 filed a
written statement and opposed the application moved by the appellant
for grant of interim injunction in its favour. The learned Civil Judge
(Sr. Divn.) after taking notice of the fact that the suit land was situate
in the outskirts of the village and had been acquired by the appellant
with full occupancy rights through a conveyance deed executed by
Collector, Jamnagar on behalf of the Governor of State of Gujarat on
11th February, 1970 and the assessment of revenue had been settled in
the deed, came to a finding that the appellant had established a prima
facie good case in its favour. However, the application was rejected
on the ground that the appellant would not suffer any irreparable
injury as in the event the appellant succeeded in the suit, the Court
was competent to direct refund of the amount along with appropriate
interest. The appellant preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order
of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) under Order XLIII Rule 1(r)
CPC which was admitted, but the prayer for grant of an interim
injunction pending the appeal was rejected by the order dated 19th
June, 2003 which is the subject matter of challenge in the present
appeal.
4. We have heard Shri V.A. Mohta, learned senior counsel for the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
appellant and Shri R.P. Bhatt, learned senior counsel for the
respondents. Notice was issued in the Special Leave Petition on 30th
June, 2003. Thereafter, on 22nd March, 2004, the following interim
order was passed after hearing counsel for both the sides :
"In the meantime, by way of interim relief it is directed
that the petitioner shall pay the dues, fallen in arrears with
effect from 1st January, 2000 and calculated upto 31st March,
2004 within a period of six weeks from today, subject to
adjustment for such amount as may have already been paid for
this period and shall thereafter continue to pay the arrears
falling due year by year within four weeks of the demand being
raised for that financial year.
The arrears as per demand contained in the notice dated
18th November, 1999 shall be secured by the petitioner by
furnishing a bank guarantee within six weeks from today and
the amount shall also remain as charge on the property of the
petitioner-company.
This interim arrangement shall remain in operation
during the hearing of this petition."
Shri Mohta has made a statement that the suit has to be decided
basically on the basis of documentary evidence and very little oral
evidence has to be adduced by the parties. In that view of the matter,
we are of the opinion that it will be in the interest of justice if the suit
itself is disposed of at an early date. It is accordingly directed that the
learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) at Jam Khambhalia shall decide the
suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months of
filing of a certified copy of this order before him and the order passed
by this Court on 22nd March, 2004, as reproduced above, shall remain
in operation until the decision of the suit. The appellant shall file a
certified copy of this order before the trial Court by 31st October,
2005.
5. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.