Partly allowed

Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation v. Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Allahabad HC16 Aug 2023FAFO/1821/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of two appeals arising from orders granting interim relief during the pendency of a suit for lease deed disputes. Holding that sought reliefs were essentially final in nature, the court set aside the orders dated 11.10.2021 and 16.03.2022, allowing parties to reapply for interim or final relief.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 11.10.2021 and 16.03.2022 set aside. Parties directed to move appropriate applications for interim/final relief before trial court.

Uttar Pradesh State Industrial… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:164795

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1821 of 2021

¶4

Appellant :- Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Respondent :- Bhasin Infotech And Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Counsel for Appellant :- Swapnil Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Shivam Yadav

¶5

With

¶6

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1249 of 2022

¶7

Appellant :- Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Respondent :- Bhasin Infotech And Infrastructure Private Limited Counsel for Appellant :- Swapnil Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Shivam Yadav,Aditya Yadav

¶8

Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶9

1. Heard Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Sri Swapnil Kumar, for the appellant and Sri Rakesh Pande, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shivam Yadav, for the respondent.

¶10

2. The two appeals arise out of orders passed in the same suit (O.S. No. 257/2018), between the same parties, and accordingly, as agreed by the counsel for the parties, they have been heard together and are being disposed by a common order.

¶11

3. First Appeal From Order No. - 1821 of 2021 is directed against the order dated 11.10.2021, passed in Original Suit No. 257 of 2018, in terms of which the Application 6C2 filed by the plaintiff was allowed with a direction that the defendant shall restrain themselves from implementing Clauses No. 3 (e) (i) (j)

¶12

and 5 of the lease deed dated 23.08.2006, and the abovementioned clauses shall remain stayed till the disposal of the suit.

¶13

4. The appeal upon being taken up, on 18.11.2021, an order was passed directing that the effect and operation of the order dated 11.10.2021 passed by the Trial Court on Application 6C2, shall be kept in abeyance.

¶14

5. Against the aforestated order, the respondent herein preferred a Special Leave to Appeal No. 2576 of 2022 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was disposed of by an order dated 06.04.2022 with a direction to the parties to exchange the pleadings in the appeal before the High Court and a further direction to the High Court for early disposal of the appeal on its own merits. The interim relief granted by the trial court, which was under challenge before the High Court, was directed to be continued till the First Appeal From Order is decided.

¶15

6. Counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court to an earlier order dated 28.07.2022 passed in the present appeal, wherein the statement of the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent was recorded, which was to the effect that a writ petition being Civil Misc. Petition No. 3790 of 2022, with regard to conversion of lease hold rights into free hold rights in Plot No. S.H. -3, situate at Industrial Region Site -4, Surajpur, District - Gautam Buddh Nagar, which was pending before the High Court had been transferred to the Supreme Court and that in the event the writ petition was decided then the adjudication of the First Appeal From Order would not be required.

¶16

7. It has been pointed out that the aforestated writ petition which had been filed for a direction for conversion of the subject land from leasehold to freehold, was registered as Transferred Case

¶17

(Civil) No. 82 of 2022, before the Supreme Court, and the said petition has been finally dismissed in terms of a judgment dated 17.03.2023.

¶18

8. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the reliefs sought in the application seeking temporary injunction which was allowed in terms of the order dated 11.10.2021, against which the present appeal has been preferred, are of a final nature and could have been granted only upon disposal of the suit.

¶19

9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has not disputed the fact that the writ petition seeking conversion of the subject land from lease hold to free hold has been dismissed by the Supreme Court in terms of its judgment dated 17.03.2023. The stand taken by him which was noticed in the order dated 28.07.2022, is sought to be explained by submitting that in the event the writ petition for grant of freehold rights would have been allowed, the suit would not be required to be pursued.

¶20

10. As regards the order of temporary injunction dated 11.10.2021 which is subject matter of the present appeal, learned counsel has fairly stated that the relief for 'permanent injunction' which had been sought in the application 6C2, filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was based on wrong advice, and the same would indeed amount to seeking a relief which could have been granted only at the stage of the disposal of the suit.

¶21

11. It appears that during the interregnum, an application 108C2, invoking the provision of Section 151 C.P.C., was filed by the plaintiff-respondent in the pending suit, which came to be allowed by an order dated 16.03.2022 and in terms thereof the demand of time extension fees by the defendant against the applicant-plaintiff

¶22

was stayed.

¶23

12. The aforestated order dated 16.03.2022 was subjected to challenge in First Appeal From Order (Defective) No. - 162 of 2022 ( subsequently re-numbered as First Appeal From Order No. - 1249 of 2022) and this Court vide its order dated 24.05.2022 stayed the said order.

¶24

13. It has been pointed out that the relief which was sought in the application 108C2 is similar in terms of relief (b) sought by means of the earlier application for temporary injunction 6C2, which was not granted by the trial court under its earlier order dated 11.10.2021.

¶25

14. Having regard to the aforestated facts and circumstances, particularly in view of the categorical stand taken by the counsel appearing for the parties that the reliefs which were sought in terms of the application for temporary injunction, being Application 6C2, and also the application filed under Section 151 C.P.C., being Application 108C2, were principally in the nature of final reliefs and could not have been granted at the interim stage, the orders dated 11.10.2021 and 16.03.2022, are held to be legally unsustainable and are accordingly set aside.

¶26

15. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, at this stage, makes a submission that the respondent may be granted indulgence to move applications seeking appropriate interim reliefs during the pendency of the suit and also seek expedition of the suit.

¶27

16. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant states that he has no objection insofar as expedition of the suit is being sought.

¶28

17. The two appeals are disposed of in terms of the aforestated stand taken by the counsel for the respective parties.

¶29

18. It would be open to the parties concerned to move applications before the trial court seeking appropriate reliefs, including expedition of the pending suit.

¶30

Order Date :- 16.8.2023 Arun K. Singh

¶31

[Dr. Y.K. Srivastava, J.]

¶32

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation v. Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation v. Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Holy Angels School Vs Nitendra @ Nitin and 2 Others

Dhruvnarayan Pandey Vs Amarika and Another

Jitendra and Another Vs Jiyani Devi and 2 Others

Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Vs Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Private Limited

U.P State Road Transport Corporation Vs Smt. Anita Devi and 4 Others

Dilip Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others