Mica Industries Ltd., Calcuuta Vs. Vinayak Mica Exports Co. & Ors  INSC
1561 (10 September 2009)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5780 OF
1999 Christian Mica Industries Ltd., Calcutta ...
VERSUS Vinayak Mica Exports Co. & Ors. ...
This appeal by way of a Special Leave is directed th against a
Judgment and order dated 9 of August, 1999 passed by a Division Bench of the
High Court of Calcutta in ACO No. 32 of 1998 arising out of Appeal 1 No. 281 of
1998 and connected with Company Petition No. 117 of 1979, by which an
application filed at the instance of the respondent for extending or granting a
further period of 12 weeks to the respondent to lift mica from Dump No. 1, Dump
No. 2 and the main factory shed of M/s Christian Mica at Tisri, Giridih, Bihar
was allowed in part.
By the impugned order, the Division Bench of the High Court
granted extension of time to remove the remaining quantities of mica scraps
lying at Dump No. 1, Dump No. 2 and the main factory shed of M/s Christian Mica
at Tisri, Giridih, Bihar, not exceeding the 2 quantity of 15,000 MTs within a
period of 8 weeks from the date of obtaining the assistance of police
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also
examined the records of this case. In view of the fact that the time granted by
the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned order had long expired and
during the pendency of this appeal in this Court, certain interim orders have
been passed by this Court permitting the respondents to remove or lift mica
scraps from Dump No. 1, Dump No. 2 and the main factory shed of M/s Christian
Mica at Tisri, Giridih, 3 Bihar, we are of the view that the appeal has become
Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant submits that the respondent had lifted mica scraps more than the
scraps they were allowed to lift from Dump No. 1, Dump No. 2 and the main
factory shed of M/s Christian Mica at Tisri, Giridih, Bihar, although the High
Court by the impugned order had restricted the respondents from lifting more
than 15000 MTs from the aforesaid dumps in question. Accordingly, Mr. Gupta,
learned senior counsel for the appellants, sought to contend that since the
respondents have lifted more than they were 4 allowed to lift, the appellants
should be permitted to take appropriate steps for recovery of the mica scraps
or equivalent amount of damages by approaching the High Court or any other
appropriate authority in accordance with law.
Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the respondent,
contested the submissions of Mr. Gupta and submitted that in compliance with
the order passed by the High Court as well as by this Court in the interim
orders, they have lifted scrap from the dumps in question and, therefore,
question of giving liberty to recover the mica scraps or equivalent amount of
damages from the appellants does not arise at all. He 5 had drawn our attention
to some of the orders passed by the High Court and also the impugned order,
from which he sought to contend that the lifting of mica scraps has been done
in accordance with the order passed by the High Court and also by this Court
and, therefore, it would not be open for the appellants to re- agitate the
question any further.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going
through the impugned order as well as the interim orders passed by this Court
during the pendency of this appeal, we are of the view that this question as
raised by the learned counsel for the parties, cannot be agitated at this stage
because the 6 appeal has been filed against an order passed by the High Court
on the application for extension of time to lift mica scraps from the dumps in
question. Since that time has already expired and, therefore, we are not in a
position to go into this question. Accordingly, we dispose of this appeal by
making an observation only that whatever observations or findings made by the High
Court in the impugned order has to be taken for the adjudication of the
application for extension of time and not otherwise.
The parties would be at liberty to agitate the question before the
appropriate Court or authority as to the findings made by the High Court while
deciding the 7 application for extension of time to remove mica scraps.
With these observations, this appeal is disposed of.
will be no order as to costs.