Southern
Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd. & ANR Vs. Madras Refineries Ltd.
& Ors [1997] INSC 800 (24 October 1997)
SUHAS
C, SEN, M. JAGANNADHA RAO
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
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 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 :
Back
