Mumbai International Airport Private Ltd. Vs. Indamer Company Private Limited & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 3883 of 2013
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27519 of 2008]
[From the Judgement and Order dated 02.07.2008 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal from Order No. 418 of 2008]
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27519 of 2008]
[From the Judgement and Order dated 02.07.2008 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal from Order No. 418 of 2008]
Petitioner: Mumbai International Airport Private Ltd.
Respondent: Indamer Company Private Limited & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 3883 of 2013
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27519 of 2008]
[From the Judgement and Order dated 02.07.2008 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal from Order No. 418 of 2008]
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27519 of 2008]
[From the Judgement and Order dated 02.07.2008 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal from Order No. 418 of 2008]
Judges: Surinder Singh Nijjar & Pinaki Chandra Ghose, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 15, 2013
Appearances:
Appearances
Mr. U.U. Lalit, Senior Advocate, Mr. Ashish Jha, Ms. Meenakshi Chatterjee (for M/s. ‘Coac’), Advocates, with him for the Appellant.
Mr. T.S. Sidhu, Ms. Pallavi Mohan, Mr. Sumit Gupta, Mr. Ashish Suman, Mr. Junaid Akhtar (for M/s. M.V. Kini & Associates), Advocates, with him for the Respondents.
Mr. U.U. Lalit, Senior Advocate, Mr. Ashish Jha, Ms. Meenakshi Chatterjee (for M/s. ‘Coac’), Advocates, with him for the Appellant.
Mr. T.S. Sidhu, Ms. Pallavi Mohan, Mr. Sumit Gupta, Mr. Ashish Suman, Mr. Junaid Akhtar (for M/s. M.V. Kini & Associates), Advocates, with him for the Respondents.
Head Note:
Practise and Procedure
Appeal against interim order – Temporary injunction order passed, till final disposal of suit by High Court – Compromise reached between parties – Suit dismissed. Held when suit is dismissed impugned order can not be sustained. Order set aside.
Appeal against interim order – Temporary injunction order passed, till final disposal of suit by High Court – Compromise reached between parties – Suit dismissed. Held when suit is dismissed impugned order can not be sustained. Order set aside.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal was filed against interim order, dated 2nd July, 2008, in Appeal From Order No.418 of 2008 in Notice of Motion No.82 of 2007 in Short Cause Suit No.45 of 2007. By the aforesaid order,, the High Court had granted a limited injunction that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit the appellant shall not dispossess or interfere with the possession of respondent No.1 except by due process of law.
3. Subsequent to the passing of the aforesaid order, the appellant has settled the entire dispute with respondent No.1, who has already vacated the suit premises and has occupied another space, under the subsequent independent arrangement between the parties. In the application (I.A. NO.5/2013 in SLP(C) NO.27519/2008) filed on behalf of appellant for seeking permission to file additional documents, it has been brought to our notice that the aforesaid suit in which the interim order had been passed was actually dismissed on 28th June, 2012. Since the suit in which the interim order had been passed has been dismissed, obviously, the impugned order also cannot be sustained.
4. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside.
5. The appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. No costs.
***********
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal was filed against interim order, dated 2nd July, 2008, in Appeal From Order No.418 of 2008 in Notice of Motion No.82 of 2007 in Short Cause Suit No.45 of 2007. By the aforesaid order,, the High Court had granted a limited injunction that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit the appellant shall not dispossess or interfere with the possession of respondent No.1 except by due process of law.
3. Subsequent to the passing of the aforesaid order, the appellant has settled the entire dispute with respondent No.1, who has already vacated the suit premises and has occupied another space, under the subsequent independent arrangement between the parties. In the application (I.A. NO.5/2013 in SLP(C) NO.27519/2008) filed on behalf of appellant for seeking permission to file additional documents, it has been brought to our notice that the aforesaid suit in which the interim order had been passed was actually dismissed on 28th June, 2012. Since the suit in which the interim order had been passed has been dismissed, obviously, the impugned order also cannot be sustained.
4. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside.
5. The appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. No costs.
***********
