NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5780 OF 1999

Christian Mica Industries Ltd., Calcutta                    …  

Appellant

VERSUS

Vinayak Mica Exports Co. & Ors.                             … Respondents

O R D E R

1. This  appeal  by  way  of  a  Special  Leave  is  directed  

against  a  Judgment  and  order  dated  9th 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.  

2. 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  

authorities.   

3. 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  

infructuous.   

4. 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.   

5. 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.   

6. 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.   

7. 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.     

8. With  these  observations,  this  appeal  is  disposed  of.  

There will be no order as to costs.      

…………………………,J [TARUN CHATTERJEE]

…………………………,J      [R. M. LODHA]

NEW DELHI,  SEPTEMBER 10, 2009

8