Buildwel Corporation Vs. Food Corporation of India
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 8260-8261 of 2013
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.25074-75 of 2013)
[From the Judgment and Order dated 25.07.2013 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Appeal from Order No. 289 of 2013 and Civil Application No. 7119 of 2013 in Appeal from Order No. 289 of 2013]
Appearances
Mr. Prasenjit Keswani, Mrs V.D. Khanna, Advocates for the Appellant.
Mr. K. Vijayan, Mr. Ajit Pudussery, Advocates for the Respondents.
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.25074-75 of 2013)
[From the Judgment and Order dated 25.07.2013 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Appeal from Order No. 289 of 2013 and Civil Application No. 7119 of 2013 in Appeal from Order No. 289 of 2013]
Appearances
Mr. Prasenjit Keswani, Mrs V.D. Khanna, Advocates for the Appellant.
Mr. K. Vijayan, Mr. Ajit Pudussery, Advocates for the Respondents.
Petitioner: Buildwel Corporation
Respondent: Food Corporation of India
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 8260-8261 of 2013
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.25074-75 of 2013)
[From the Judgment and Order dated 25.07.2013 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Appeal from Order No. 289 of 2013 and Civil Application No. 7119 of 2013 in Appeal from Order No. 289 of 2013]
Appearances
Mr. Prasenjit Keswani, Mrs V.D. Khanna, Advocates for the Appellant.
Mr. K. Vijayan, Mr. Ajit Pudussery, Advocates for the Respondents.
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.25074-75 of 2013)
[From the Judgment and Order dated 25.07.2013 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Appeal from Order No. 289 of 2013 and Civil Application No. 7119 of 2013 in Appeal from Order No. 289 of 2013]
Appearances
Mr. Prasenjit Keswani, Mrs V.D. Khanna, Advocates for the Appellant.
Mr. K. Vijayan, Mr. Ajit Pudussery, Advocates for the Respondents.
Judges: Anil R. Dave & Dipak Misra, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 02, 2013
Head Note:
Practice and Procedure
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 – Interim injunction – Grant or refusal of – Food grains stored in godown of plaintiff – Decision of defendant to remove – Rental charges not paid – Suit filed – No interim relief granted – Matter taken upto Supreme Court – Pursuant to direction, amount of Rs. 30 lakhs deposited by defendant (against claim of Rs. 68.25 lakhs) – Amount of Rs. 31,49,252/- lying as security with defendant. Held that in the interest of justice, defendant should provide security for claimed amount and to the satisfaction of trial court. Plaintiff to withdraw 50% of deposited amount. Food grains removed as per High Court order, after making inventory. Plaintiff allowed to claim his security deposit. (Paras 8 to 12)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 – Interim injunction – Grant or refusal of – Food grains stored in godown of plaintiff – Decision of defendant to remove – Rental charges not paid – Suit filed – No interim relief granted – Matter taken upto Supreme Court – Pursuant to direction, amount of Rs. 30 lakhs deposited by defendant (against claim of Rs. 68.25 lakhs) – Amount of Rs. 31,49,252/- lying as security with defendant. Held that in the interest of justice, defendant should provide security for claimed amount and to the satisfaction of trial court. Plaintiff to withdraw 50% of deposited amount. Food grains removed as per High Court order, after making inventory. Plaintiff allowed to claim his security deposit. (Paras 8 to 12)
JUDGEMENT:
1. Leave granted.
2. The facts giving rise to the present litigation, in a nut-shell, are as under:
The respondent – Food Corporation of India was unable to store its food grains in its own godowns and therefore, it had hired godowns belonging to the appellant.
3. The respondent-Corporation wanted to remove its food grains from the appellant’s godowns but according to the appellant, the respondent- Corporation was making an effort to remove the food grains without paying storage charges to the extent of Rs.68,25,468/- and even without refunding the amount of security deposit of Rs.31,49,252/-. In the circumstances, the appellant has filed civil Suit No.633 of 2013 in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad seeking a declaration that forcible removal of the food grains from the godowns, without making payment of storage charges, is bad in law and an interim prayer was made that the respondent-Corporation be restrained from removing the food grains so as to enable the appellant to exercise its right of lien over the food grains.
4. As the injunction prayed for had not been granted by virtue of Order dated 28.5.2013, the appellant had filed Appeal from Order No.289 of 2013 with Civil Application No.7119 of 2013, being an application praying for interim relief in the High Court of Gujarat. The High Court admitted the appeal on 25th July, 2013 but refused to grant injunction as prayed for by the appellant and therefore, this appeal has been filed by the appellant against the Order dated 25th July, 2013 whereby interim relief has been refused.
5. By virtue of the impugned order, the High Court has admitted the Appeal from Order and has also directed that after proper inventory of the food grains being made by the Court Commissioner in the presence of both the parties, the respondent-Corporation be permitted to remove the food grains.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that by virtue of the impugned order, the suit filed by the appellant would become infructuous for the reason that if the appellant is not protected by the court, the appellant would be losing its right of lien over the food grain stored in its godown. By virtue of the impugned order, the respondent- Corporation would take away the food grains without paying the storage charges and thus the right of lien, which could have been exercised by the appellant, would not be available to it. The counsel has, therefore, submitted that the impugned order be quashed and the food grains belonging to the respondent, stored in the godown of the appellant should not be permitted to be taken away by the respondent.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that in pursuance of the interim direction given by this Court on 7th August, 2013, the respondent has already deposited Rs.30 lacs with the trial court. He has further submitted that if the food grains are not removed from the godown of the appellant, the quality of the food grains might be adversely affected and the food grains might become inedible. He has further submitted that the order passed by the trial court as well as by the High Court is just and proper and therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.
8. Upon hearing the concerned counsel and upon knowing the fact that the respondent has already deposited Rs.30 lacs with the trial court in pursuance of the order dated 7th August, 2013 passed by this Court, in our opinion, interest of the appellant would be sufficiently protected if some further direction is given for securing interest of the appellant-owner of the godown.
9. We note the fact that a sum of Rs.31,49,252/- belonging to the appellant is lying with the respondent-Corporation and according to the appellant, storage charges of Rs.68,25,468/- are to be paid by the respondent-Corporation.
10. Ends of justice would be served if the respondent is directed to provide security to the satisfaction of the trial court to the extent of Rs.68,25,468/- and fifty per cent of the amount deposited i.e. Rs.15 lacs is permitted to be withdrawn by the appellant without furnishing any security. We order accordingly.
11. By this time, the food grains must have been removed by the respondent as the respondent was permitted to remove the food grains after getting necessary inventory done as directed by this Court and upon deposit of Rs.30 lacs.
12. In the aforestated circumstances, it would be also open to the appellant to claim the amount of security deposit from the respondent. For that purpose, it would be open to the appellant to file an application before the trial court and if such an application is filed, the trial court shall decide the same after hearing the concerned parties and after considering the facts of the case.
13. In view of the above order, the Appeal from Order, which is pending in the High Court of Gujarat has practically become infructuous and therefore, it stands disposed of. The trial court shall make an effort to dispose of Civil Suit No.633 of 2013 as soon as possible and preferably within six months from the date of getting intimation of this order by the trial court.
14. In view of the above order, the impugned order passed by the High Court dated 25th July, 2013 is quashed and set aside. The appeals are allowed without any order as to costs.
*********
2. The facts giving rise to the present litigation, in a nut-shell, are as under:
The respondent – Food Corporation of India was unable to store its food grains in its own godowns and therefore, it had hired godowns belonging to the appellant.
3. The respondent-Corporation wanted to remove its food grains from the appellant’s godowns but according to the appellant, the respondent- Corporation was making an effort to remove the food grains without paying storage charges to the extent of Rs.68,25,468/- and even without refunding the amount of security deposit of Rs.31,49,252/-. In the circumstances, the appellant has filed civil Suit No.633 of 2013 in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad seeking a declaration that forcible removal of the food grains from the godowns, without making payment of storage charges, is bad in law and an interim prayer was made that the respondent-Corporation be restrained from removing the food grains so as to enable the appellant to exercise its right of lien over the food grains.
4. As the injunction prayed for had not been granted by virtue of Order dated 28.5.2013, the appellant had filed Appeal from Order No.289 of 2013 with Civil Application No.7119 of 2013, being an application praying for interim relief in the High Court of Gujarat. The High Court admitted the appeal on 25th July, 2013 but refused to grant injunction as prayed for by the appellant and therefore, this appeal has been filed by the appellant against the Order dated 25th July, 2013 whereby interim relief has been refused.
5. By virtue of the impugned order, the High Court has admitted the Appeal from Order and has also directed that after proper inventory of the food grains being made by the Court Commissioner in the presence of both the parties, the respondent-Corporation be permitted to remove the food grains.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that by virtue of the impugned order, the suit filed by the appellant would become infructuous for the reason that if the appellant is not protected by the court, the appellant would be losing its right of lien over the food grain stored in its godown. By virtue of the impugned order, the respondent- Corporation would take away the food grains without paying the storage charges and thus the right of lien, which could have been exercised by the appellant, would not be available to it. The counsel has, therefore, submitted that the impugned order be quashed and the food grains belonging to the respondent, stored in the godown of the appellant should not be permitted to be taken away by the respondent.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that in pursuance of the interim direction given by this Court on 7th August, 2013, the respondent has already deposited Rs.30 lacs with the trial court. He has further submitted that if the food grains are not removed from the godown of the appellant, the quality of the food grains might be adversely affected and the food grains might become inedible. He has further submitted that the order passed by the trial court as well as by the High Court is just and proper and therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.
8. Upon hearing the concerned counsel and upon knowing the fact that the respondent has already deposited Rs.30 lacs with the trial court in pursuance of the order dated 7th August, 2013 passed by this Court, in our opinion, interest of the appellant would be sufficiently protected if some further direction is given for securing interest of the appellant-owner of the godown.
9. We note the fact that a sum of Rs.31,49,252/- belonging to the appellant is lying with the respondent-Corporation and according to the appellant, storage charges of Rs.68,25,468/- are to be paid by the respondent-Corporation.
10. Ends of justice would be served if the respondent is directed to provide security to the satisfaction of the trial court to the extent of Rs.68,25,468/- and fifty per cent of the amount deposited i.e. Rs.15 lacs is permitted to be withdrawn by the appellant without furnishing any security. We order accordingly.
11. By this time, the food grains must have been removed by the respondent as the respondent was permitted to remove the food grains after getting necessary inventory done as directed by this Court and upon deposit of Rs.30 lacs.
12. In the aforestated circumstances, it would be also open to the appellant to claim the amount of security deposit from the respondent. For that purpose, it would be open to the appellant to file an application before the trial court and if such an application is filed, the trial court shall decide the same after hearing the concerned parties and after considering the facts of the case.
13. In view of the above order, the Appeal from Order, which is pending in the High Court of Gujarat has practically become infructuous and therefore, it stands disposed of. The trial court shall make an effort to dispose of Civil Suit No.633 of 2013 as soon as possible and preferably within six months from the date of getting intimation of this order by the trial court.
14. In view of the above order, the impugned order passed by the High Court dated 25th July, 2013 is quashed and set aside. The appeals are allowed without any order as to costs.
*********
