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 :