Back
2004(6) Supreme 518
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Calcutta High Court)
N. Santosh Hegde, S.B. Sinha & A.K. Mathur, JJ.
Metro Marins & Anr. -Appellants
versus
Bonus Watch Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5901 of 2004
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1610 of 2004)
Decided on 10-9-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Jaydeep Gupta, Sr. Advocate, S. Ghosh and V.K. Monga, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate, C. Mukund, Ashok Kr. Jain, Pankaj Jain and Bijoy Kumar Jain, Advocates.
Held : Having considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents produced, we are satisfied that the impugned order of the Appellate Court cannot be sustained either on facts or in law. As noticed by this Court in the case of Dorab Cawasji Warden vs. Coomi Sorab Warden (supra) has held that an interim mandatory injunction can be granted only in exceptional cases coming within the exceptions noticed in the said judgment. In our opinion, the case of the respondent herein does not come under anyone of those exceptions and even on facts it is not such a case which calls for the issuance of an interim mandatory injunction directing the possession being handed over to the respondent. As observed by the learned Single Judge the issue whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession is yet to be decided in the Trial Court and granting of any interim order directing handing over of a possession would only mean decreeing the suit even before trial. Once the possession of the appellant either directly or through his agent (caretaker) is admitted then the fact that the appellant is not using the said property for commercial purpose or not using the same for any beneficial purpose or the appellant has to pay huge amount by way of damages in the event of he loosing the case or the fact that the litigation between the parties is a luxury litigation are all facts which are irrelevant for changing the status-quo in regard to possession during the pendency of the suit. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion the Appellate Court erred in reversing the order of the learned Single Judge and granting a mandatory order of injunction. In view of our above findings, we think it appropriate that even the appointment of a receiver be it an interim order or otherwise to supervise the possession of the property in question is also unnecessary, hence said appointment of receiver is also set aside. (Paras 9 and 10)
Based on the legal document provided, here are the key points regarding the case Metro Marins & Anr. vs. Bonus Watch Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.:
Case Citation and Details The case is Civil Appeal No. 5901 of 2004, decided by the Supreme Court of India on 10-9-2004, arising from the Calcutta High Court. The court consisted of Judges N. Santosh Hegde, S.B. Sinha, and A.K. Mathur. (!) (!) (!)
Subject Matter and Legal Issue The case concerns Civil Law regarding Injunctions, specifically the grant of an interim mandatory injunction in a suit for possession where the appellant is alleged to be a licensee whose license period has expired. The relevant laws cited are Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. [judgement_subject][judgement_act_referred]
Facts of the Case The respondent filed a suit for possession alleging the appellant was a licensee and that the license had expired. The appellant filed an application for a judgment on admission and an interim mandatory injunction to hand over possession. The Single Judge dismissed this application, stating that granting it would amount to decreeing the suit before trial. An appeal was filed against this dismissal, where the Appellate Bench reversed the order and granted the mandatory injunction, directing the handing over of possession and the appointment of a receiver. (!) (!) (!)
Arguments for the Appellants The appellant's counsel argued that the nature of possession was a triable issue and could not be decided before the trial. They contended that granting the injunction would violate the law laid down in Dorab Cawasji Warden vs. Coomi Sorab Warden. They further argued that facts such as the property not being used for commercial purposes or the litigation being "luxury litigation" are irrelevant to changing the status quo. (!) (!) (!)
Arguments for the Respondents The respondent's counsel argued that the appeal should be dismissed preliminarily because the appellant was ready and willing to hand over possession in 1998 but backed out due to an unpaid security amount. On merits, they argued that the relationship was that of licensor and licensee, the license had expired, the appellant became a trespasser, and the non-payment of rent justified the injunction. (!)
Court's Reasoning and Holding The Supreme Court held that an interim mandatory injunction can only be granted in exceptional cases as per Dorab Cawasji Warden vs. Coomi Sorab Warden. The Court ruled that the respondent's case did not fall under any such exception. Granting the injunction would effectively decree the suit before the trial concludes regarding the nature of the relationship. The Court deemed factors like commercial use, potential damages, or the nature of litigation irrelevant for altering possession status during the pendency of the suit. Consequently, the appointment of a receiver was also deemed unnecessary. (!) (!)
Final Decision The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Appellate Court, and restored the order of the trial court (Single Judge). (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
Santosh Hegde, J.-Heard learned counsels for the parties.
Leave granted.
2. Appellant herein questions the correctness of an order made by the Appellate Bench of the High Court at Calcutta which by the impugned order set aside the order made by a learned Single Judge on the original civil jurisdiction of that Court in C.A.No. 682 of 1999 in C.S.No. 99 of 1999. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:
3. The respondent herein filed a suit for possession alleging the appellant herein to be a licensee and the period of license having expired he was entitled to a decree for khas possession of the suit schedule property as also for certain other ancillary reliefs. In the said suit he filed an interlocutory application, firstly praying for a judgment on admission and in the alternative for an injunction directing the appellant herein to immediately hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit schedule property premises to the respondent-plaintiff. The learned Single Judge who heard the said application came to the conclusion that he did not find any reason to pass a decree on admission or to grant interim mandatory injunction directing the appellant-defendant to hand over possession of the flat in view of the fact that the suit was still pending in the court and granting of such relief would tantamount to a decree before trial for which the respondent has not made out a case.
4. It is against the said dismissal of the plaintiff s application, an appeal was filed confining the appeal only to the reliefs by way of injunction seeking interim possession of the suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit. The Appellate Bench after noticing the arguments of the parties and the documents produced came to the conclusion that prima facie the relationship between the parties was that of licensee and licensor. It also came to the conclusion at one point of time in 1998 the appellants were willing to voluntarily surrender the possession but did not do so because the respondent did not agree to repay the security amount. It also came to the conclusion that for about 4 years the property in question has been under a Caretaker and the said property was not used for any commercial purpose. In the said background, the appellate court came to the conclusion that it is not proper that the property (Flat) should be kept in a disused condition. The appellate bench also considered the litigation to be a luxury litigation and on this philosophical background it directed the receiver who was earlier appointed as an interim receiver to take inventory of the movable in the property to take symbolic possession of the suit property and put the respondent-plaintiff in possession of the property under the authority of that receiver subject to final adjudication in the original suit.
5. It is the above mandatory interim order of directing the interim possession being handed over to the plaintiffs in a suit for possession, the appellants are before us.
6. Shri Jaydeep Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that it is an admitted fact that the appellants were in possession of the suit property and the suit itself was for eviction and for possession. He contended that there was a triable issue as to the nature of possession hence a decision to hand over possession or not could have been taken only after deciding this issue and on the basis of law applicable to such relationship. Learned counsel pointed out that Trial Court has for good reasons rejected the interim application of the plaintiff holding that allowing such application would amount to grant of a decree even before trial which normally is not permissible in law. He submitted that is no extraordinary circumstances on facts of the present case which could have permitted the Appellate Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of granting the interim possession in favour of the plaintiff in a suit for possession. He placed
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
