Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SOUTHERN PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD. & ANR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MADRAS REFINERIES LTD. & ORS. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/10/1997
BENCH:
SUHAS C, SEN, M. JAGANNADHA RAO
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1997
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suhas C.Sen
Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Jagannadha Rao
Ashok Desai, Solicitor General, K. Parasaran, Gopal
Subramaniam, Soli J. Sorabjee, Ms.N. Chidambaram, K.T.S.
Tuslsi, Sr. Advs., K.Ram Kumar, Ms.Asha Nair, A.M. Krishna,
C. Balasubramaniam, S.Muralidhar, Ms.Indu Malhotra,
Ms.Shruti Pandey, Mahesh Agrawala, E.C. Agrawala, Atul
Sharma, G.P. Srivastava, Sinthil, Arvind Datar, P.B. Kak and
Vikas Pahwa, Advs. with them for the appearing parties.
O R D E R
The following Judgment of the court was delivered:
WITH
S.L.P. (C) Nos. 136000-13605/97, 13809-13812/9
7 13864-13865/97
These Special Leave Petition are directed against an
interim order passed by a Division Bench of the Madras High
Court on 18th March, 1997. Earlier, an order was passed on
2nd July, 1996 in which after an elaborate examination o
facts and law, certain interim directions were given by the
learned Single Judge.
On an application moved by the Union of India, some of
the observations in that judgment of the Single Judge in
O.A. Nos. 77 and 78 of 1996 in c.s. No.67 of 1996 and O.A.
Nos.86 and 87 of 1996 in C.S. No.73 of 1996 were expunged by
the Appeal Court on 18th March, 1997.
The Madras Refineries Limited (MRL) preferred an appeal
against the order of the Single Judge. The Appeal Court
discussed the facts in great depth and thought fit to order
a thorough investigation and a detailed probe into
transferring of certain lands in favour of a Company which
was promoted by Southern Petro Chemical Industries
Corporation Limited (SCL). After examination of the facts
of the case at great length, the Appeal Court ultimately
passed the following order;
"Considering all these aspects and
the conduct of the parties, we are
convinced that MRL has made out a
prima facies case in C.A. No.73 of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
1996. It also established that if
injunction is not granted as prayed
for that would cause also
established that the balance of
convenience rests in its favour for
grant of injunction. However, the
prayer of MRL in O.A. No.87 of
1996, i.e. for a temporary
mandatory injunction, directing the
7th respondent to hand over
possession to the 8th respondent of
168.38 acres of suit land, cannot
be granted at this stage.
In so far as some of the conditions
imposed by the learned single Judge
for granting interim injunctions
are concerned they cannot be
complied with by the parties
without the intervention of the
court and therefore all the
conditions imposed by the learned
single Judge are vacated and the
Plaintiff in C.S. No.67 of 1996 and
in O.A.No.86 of 1996 in C.S.No.73
of 1996, without imposing and
conditions, pending disposal of the
abovesaid two suits. Interim
temporary mandatory injunction
asked for by the plaintiff in
O.A.No.87 of 1996 in C.S.No.73 of
1996 cannot be granted at this
stage. Accordingly, the common
order passed by the learned single
Judge in the aforesaid
interlocutory applications stands
modified to the abovesaid extend.
In the result, O.S.A.Nos. 171 to 13
of 1996 are allowed with costs.
O.S.A.No.174 of 1996 is dismissed
without costs. O.S.A.Nos. 190 to
193 of 1996 also stand dismissed
with costs."
This Court does not usually entertain appeals from
interim orders passed by the High Courts. This case has
been argued before us at great length. We, however, see no
reason to interfere with the interim order passed by the
Appeal Court. We also refrain from discussing the facts and
the various arguments advanced at great length by both the
parties in detail because any expression of opinion on our
part on any of the issues of fact or law may prejudice the
final hearing of the case.
We are of the view no interference with the interim
order passed by the Appeal court is called for. The Special
Leave Petitions are dismissed. There will be no order as to
costs.
IN THE MATTER OF :