2009 Supreme(SC) 1566

2009(6) Supreme 584
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Altamas Kabir and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Zenit Mataplast P. Ltd. —Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra and Ors.— Respondent
Civil Appeal No. of 2009
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 18934 of 2008)
Decided on 11-09-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
Interim injunction should be granted by the Court after considering all the pros and cons of the case in a given set of facts involved therein on the risk and responsibility of the party or, in case he looses the case, he cannot take any advantage of the same
2. The object of the interlocutory injunction is, to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his right for which he could not be adequately compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial.

Headnote:Constitution of India,1950 – Article 14 – Appellant, a Private Ltd. Company, filed an application for allotment of 8000 sq. yards land from adjacent vacant land on a prescribed form complying with other requirements Said application was rejected by respondent 2, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation a Maharashtra Government Undertaking – However Respondent. 2, vide allotted land measuring 17 acres in favour of the respondent no. 4 after changing the user of the land from vacant space to industrial – A part of open space was also converted as a “parking space” and it was allotted in favour of respondent 5 for parking of vehicles – Case of appellant made various representations to the Respondent No. 2, that rejection of its application and allotment of huge area of land in favour of respondent Nos .4 and 5 was discriminatory and violative of laws and particularly the statutory requirement which provided for allotment of land to the neighbouring unit holders – Appellant filed writ petition – High Court admitted writ petition, expedited hearing of writ petition but rejected the application for interim relief-Appeal – Admittedly the whole case of the appellant was based on violation of Article 14 of the Constitution – Facts of the case clearly established that Corporation and Government proceeded in haste while considering the application of respondent No.4 which tantamounted to arbitrariness, thus violative of mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution – Application of the appellant was required to be disposed of by a speaking and reasoned order – Admittedly, no reason was assigned for rejecting the same- Nothing on record to show as on what date and under what circumstances, Plot nos.F-16 and F-17 stood decarved and became part of the Open Space No.9 – The respondents could not furnish any explanation as in what manner and under what circumstances, the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. had been made allotment of land from plot no.F-16, (a part of Open Space No.9), without change of user of the land –The respondent no.4 had not initially asked for 17 acres of land which had been allotted to it – Nothing on record to show as to why land could not be disposed of by auction – All said circumstances proved that State and its instrumentalities had acted affectionately in the case of respondent .4 – In the facts and circumstances of the case, interim order passed by Court would continue in operation till writ petition was decided by High Court – Appeal allowed (Paras 34 to 36)

       Interim order -Interim order is passed on the basis of prima facie findings, which are Tentative-Such order is passed as a temporary arrangement to preserve status quo till the matter is decided finally, to ensure that the matter does not become either infructuous or a fait accompli before the final hearing – The object of the interlocutory injunction is, to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his right for which he could not be adequately compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial (Para 23)

       Interim injunction – Law on the issue emerges to the effect that interim injunction should be granted by the Court after considering all the pros and cons of the case in a given set of facts involved therein on the risk and responsibility of the party or, in case he looses the case, he cannot take any advantage of the same – The order can be passed on settled principles taking into account the three basic grounds i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss – The delay in approaching the Court is of course a good ground for refusal of interim relief, but in exceptional circumstances, where the case of a party is based on fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution and there is an apprehension that suit property may be developed in a manner that it acquires irretrievable situation, the Court may grant relief even at a belated stage provided the court is satisfied that the applicant has not been negligent in pursuing case. (Para 32)

       Facts of the Case :

        Present appeal has been filed against the order of the Bombay High Court rejecting the application for interim relief while admitting the Writ Petition and expediting its hearing against the allotment of land by the respondent No.2 in favour of respondents nos.4 and 5.

       Findings of the Court :

        Admittedly the whole case of the appellant was based on violation of Article 14 of the Constitution .Facts of the case clearly established that Corporation and Government proceeded in haste while considering the application of respondent No.4 which tantamounted to arbitrariness, thus violative of mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. Application of the appellant was required to be disposed of by a speaking and reasoned order. Admittedly, no reason was assigned for rejecting the same. Nothing on record to show as on what date and under what circumstances, Plot nos.F-16 and F–17 stood decarved and became part of the Open Space No.9.The respondents could not furnish any explanation as in what manner and under what circumstances, the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. had been made allotment of land from plot no.F-16, (a part of Open Space No.9), without change of user of the land.The respondent no.4 had not initially asked for 17 acres of land which had been allotted to it. Nothing on record to show as to why land could not be disposed of by auction.All said circumstances proved that State and its instrumentalities had acted affectionately in the case of respondent .4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, held that interim order passed by Court would continue in operation till writ petition was decided by High Court.

       Result : Appeal allowed