G H CENTURY RAYON LIMITED versus IVP LIMITED AND OTHERS

Citation: [2019] 18 S.C.R. 1116 · Decided: 27-11-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA, SANJIV KHANNA, KRISHNA MURARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1116
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 18 S.C.R.
CENTURY RAYON LIMITED
v.
IVP LIMITED AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 9063 of 2019)
NOVEMBER 27, 2019
[N. V. RAMANA, SANJIV KHANNA AND
KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Injunction – Interim order – Balance of convenience –
Relevant / important considerations – First respondent-company,
owner of land in question, filed suit for permanent injunction
contending that contractors appointed by second respondent-State
Electricity Distribution Company (MSEDC) were excavating its land
for construction of electricity transmission towers without prior
approval – The electricity transmission towers were being
constructed pursuant to sanction given by MSEDC on an application
made by the appellant – Trial court and first appellate court
restrained appellant and second respondent by way of temporary
injunction from “making holes for erecting poles on any part of the
suit lands without following due process of law” – Order affirmed
by High Court – On appeal, held: On facts, appellant had
subsequently obtained the necessary permission for erection of the
towers and setting up transmission line subject to payment of
compensation to first respondent in terms of s.16(1) to s.16(4) r/w
s.10 of the Telegraph Act – Also, as a matter of fact the electricity
transmission towers on the land of first respondent were already
constructed –  Therefore, and in a way, MSEDC was already using
the land of first respondent – Further, 80% of the work of laying
the electricity transmission lines was already over and at that stage,
passing of an interim injunction to stall the setting up and activation
of the transmission lines was not justified in larger public interest –
Balance of convenience did not justify passing of an interim
injunction order in favour of first respondent – Continuation of
injunction not warranted and justified in law – Adequate remedy
would be to set aside the impugned order of High Court as also the
[2019] 18 S.C.R. 1116
1116
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1117
injunction order subject to appellant making an ad hoc payment of
Rs. 20,00,000/- with such payment being subject to outcome of the
civil suit or the proceedings under the Telegraph Act for quantifying
the compensation payable to first respondent – Indian Telegraph
Act, 1885 – ss.10 and 16 – Electricity Act, 2003 – s.164.
Electricity Laws – Transmission of electricity – Use of land
belonging to third party for setting up of electricity transmission
lines – Imperative need for unobstructed access for laying down
the electricity transmission lines in the larger public interest as these
are essential requirements for growth and development of the country,
economy and well-being of citizens – Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 –
ss. 10 and 16 – Electricity Act, 2003 – s.164.
Power Grid Corporation of India Limited v. Century
Textiles and Industries Limited and Others (2017) 5 SCC
143 : [2016] 11 SCR 41 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2016) 11 SCR 41
relied on
Para 7
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9063
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order  dated 09.01.2019 of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 19175 of
2018.
N.K. Kaul, Sr. Adv., Mahesh Agarwal, Rishi Agrawala, Ankur
Saigal, Anshuman Srivastava, Rohan Talwar, E. C. Agrawala, Advs. for
the Appellant.
Gopal Jain, Sr. Adv., Ms. Jai Kanade, Aslam Ahmed,
Ms. Dhanyashree Shah, Saurabh Bindal, Kaushik Laik, Prasad Dighe,
Ms. Teja Ray, Ms. Arti Singh, akashdeep Singh Roda, Ms. Pooja Singh,
Advs. for the Respondents.
CENTURY RAYON LIMITED v. IVP LIMITED AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1118
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 18 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The first respondent – IVP Limited is a company and owner of
the non-agricultural land at village Vadavali bearing S. No. 43/32
admeasuring about 20 R Pot Kharaba 1 R and at village Mohane bearing
S. No. 42/12 admeasuring about 22R 30P and S. No. 44/2 admeasuring
about 50 R Pot Kharaba 3R. The first respondent has filed a suit for
permanent injunction with a grievance that the Maharashtra State
Electricity Distribution Company Limited (‘MSEDC’ for short), the
second respondent before us, had appointed contractors who were
excavating its land for construction of the electricity transmission towers
without any prior approval.
3. The appellant – Century Rayon Limited, who is also a defendant
in the suit, is a company engaged in the business of manufacture and
sale of chem

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.