HARDESH ORES PVT. LTD. versus TIMBLO MINERALS PVT. LTD.,AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 1212 · Decided: 16-03-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
HARD ESH ORES PVT. LTD. 
v. 
TIMBLO MINERALS PVT. LTD.,AND ORS. 
MARCH 16, 2004 
B 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
Order 39, rr. 1and2-Interim injunction-Iron ore mine-Contractor-
C Continuing mining activities claiming renewal of contract by conduct-New 
contractor filing a suit claiming that mining lease owner had refused to renew 
the contract of old contractor and entered into. a fresh contract with him-
High Court granted interim injunction in favour of new contractor-Held, the 
suit is pending for trial on merits-On the basis of three established principles 
D for grant of temporary injunction e.g., prim a facie case, balance of convenience 
and irreparable loss, it would not be appropriate to interfere with the order 
of High Court at the present stage of the suit and disturb the working of the 
mine by the new contractors who have already commenced operations and 
stated to have entered into business commitments for supply of iron ore to 
different parties in and outside India-However, the High Court ought not to 
E have granted unconditional order of temporary injunction by ignoring the 
huge investments which have been made by the old contractor to operate the 
mine under an existing arrangement and alleged renewal of the contract by 
their mutual conduct-The temporary injunction passed by the High Court is 
accordingly modified with addition of certain conditions. 
F 
G 
Provash Chandra Dalui and Anr. v. Biswanaih Banerjee and Anr., 
(1989] Supp. 1 SCC 487 and State of U.P. and Ors: v. Lalji Tandon (dead) 
through Lrs., (2004) 1 SCC 1, cited. 
Gardner v. Blaxill, (1960) 2 All ER 457, cited. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 8586-8587 
of 2003. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.9.2003 of the Bombay High 
Court at Panaji in A.F.O. No. 49/2003 and 11.9.2003 in C.A. No. 239/2003 
H in A. No. 49/2003. 
1212 
( 
• 
~---
--
HARDESH ORES (P.). LTD. '" TIMBLO MINERALS (P. l LTD. 
1213 
WITH 
A 
C.A. Nos. 8588-89 of 2003. 
Fali S. Nariman, R.F. Nariman, Dr. M.S. Usganonkar, B.R. Zaiwalla, 
K. Parasaran, M.N. Krishnamani, Kapil Sibal, G.R. Mallaya, Ms. Pallavi 
Barua, Rajan Narain, Ms. Shirin Khajuria, Bhavanisnankar V. Gadnis, Umapati B 
Ganesh, Ms. B. Sunita Rao, Nitin Popli, Bodhankar, P.H. Parekh, Rohit Alex, 
Sumit Goel, Sameer Parekh, Bodhankar, Ms. Hari Priya and Ms. Asha Gopalan 
Nair for the appearing parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
DHARMADHIKARI, J. The dispute in these appeals between the 
appellant as Iron Ore raising/purchase contractor and the respondents who 
claim to have been duly appointed as new contractors by the mine owner 
is regarding their rival claims to exclusively run the Iron Ore mine which 
is the subject matter of the suit instituted by the new contractors. 
c 
D 
The appellant company [shortly referred to as the old contractor] claims 
right to run the mine on the basis of their alleged existing contract with the 
mining-lease-owner. According to the appellant, the contract with them was 
renewed by acceptance of their offer of renewal and consequent conduct of 
permitting them to work the mine on periodical payments of price in E 
accordance with the original terms of the contract. 
The case of the contesting respondent nos. 1 & 2, who are plaintiffs 
before the trial cqurt [shortly referred to as the new contractors], is that the 
mining-lease-owner has refused to renew the contract with the appellant and 
has entered into a fresh contract on payment of higher price with them. 
F 
The trial court granted an ex parte temporary injunction in favour of 
the new contractors. After hearing both the parties at length, the ex parte 
interim injunction earlier granted under Order 39 Rules l & 2 of the Code 
of Civil Procedure was vacated by the trial court. 
G 
Aggrieved by the order of the trial court refusing to confirm the order 
of temporary injunction, the new contractors appealed to the High Court. The 
High Court by its impugned order has allowed the appeal and in terms of the 
prayer made by the new contractors, has granted temporary injunction in 
their favour without any conditions. The old contractor is, therefore, before 
u~ in these appeals. 
H 
1214 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2004] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
We have heard all the learned counsel appearing for the parties at great 
length. 
Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant after referring to 
various documents on record and stron
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.