HINDUSTAN ANTIBIOTICS LIMITED versus MAHARASHTRA HOUSING AND AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MHADA) & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 12 S.C.R. 747 · Decided: 04-10-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Leave Granted & Disposed off
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
747
HINDUSTAN ANTIBIOTICS LIMITED
v.
MAHARASHTRA HOUSING AND AREA DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY (MHADA) & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 10203 of 2018)
OCTOBER 04, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Arbitration: Dispute between a sick  company and the
Development Authority – Regarding the land owned by the Company
– Writ petition by the Company seeking to resolve the dispute –
High Court dismissed the petition holding that the appropriate
remedy for the relief was  a suit and not a writ petition – On appeal
direction by Supreme Court to settle the dispute amicably – Amicable
settlement failed – Request of the parties to refer the matter to sole
Arbitrator – Held: Various disputes including the issue in the appeal,
referred to sole Arbitrator – Sole Arbitrator appointed to decide
the disputes – Appeal disposed of.
Oil and Natural Gas Commission and Anr. v. Collector
of Central Excise (1995) Supp 4 SCC 541; Oil and
Natural Gas Corpn. Ltd. vs. City & Industrial
Development Corporation, Maharashtra Ltd. And Ors.
(2007) 7 SCC 39 : [2007] 8 SCR 429 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
(1995) Supp (4) SCC 541
referred to
Para 11
[2007] 8 SCR 429
referred to
Para 11
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10203
of 2018
From the Judgment and Order dated  06.07.2018 of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 5122 of 2018.
Debabrata Ray Choudhuri, Sr. Adv., Ranjan Kumar Rai, Amol
Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi, Chirag M.Shroff, Ms. Sanjana Nangia,
Ms. Joyshree Barman, Ms. Monisha Suri,  Advs. for the appearing parties.
747
[2018] 12 S.C.R. 747
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
748
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated
06.07.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ
Petition No. 5122 of 2018 whereby the High Court dismissed the Writ
Petition filed by the appellant herein.
3. It is not necessary to set out the entire factual details except
few one, which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal.
4. The appellant (Company) is a Government of India
Undertaking,  which is controlled and function under the Ministry of
Chemicals and Fertilizers, having its registered office  at Pimpri, Pune.
5. The appellant (Company) is engaged in the manufacturing of
life saving drugs at affordable prices for the weaker sections of the
Society. One such drug manufactured by the appellant is “Penicillin-G”.
6. The appellant (Company) entered into a joint venture with
one foreign Company-Royal Gist Brocades, Netherlands for doing
business of manufacturing “Penicillin-G”. However, for myriad reasons,
it did not do well and the joint venture was forced to close down their
activities. The matter was then referred to the Board for Industrial &
Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), which eventually prepared a
rehabilitation scheme under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special
Protection) Act, 1985 (SICA).
7. The appellant (Company) owns and in possession of 263.57
acres of land at Pimpri, Pune on which the factory and the residential
colony are built. Some land, however, remains lying idle.
8. The disputes have arisen between the appellant (Company)
and the State through its Authority called - Maharashtra Housing and
Area Development Authority (MHADA) in relation to the aforementioned
land for its disposal etc.
9. The appellant (Company), therefore, in order to resolve the
disputes filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay against the
respondents (State and MHADA) out of which this appeal arises seeking
appropriate mandamus or/and any other writ, order, as the case may be,
for disposal of the part of the aforesaid land (plot Nos. 8 and 9).
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
749
10. The Division Bench of the High Court, by impugned order,
dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant (Company) on the ground
that having regard to the nature of the reliefs and averments on which
they are founded, the proper remedy of the appellant would lie in filing
the suit in the Civil Court and not in filing the writ petition in the High
Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. It is this order,
which has given rise to filing of this appeal by way of special leave by
the appellant (Company) in this Court.
11. On 20.09.2018, when this matter came up for consideration,
we felt that since all parties to the appeal are either Public Undertaking
or/and the State and its agencies (M
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.