THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, GONDAL AND ORS. versus SHRI GIRDHARBHAI RAMJIBHAI CHHANIYARA AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 74 · Decided: 05-05-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET 
COMMITIEE, GONDAL AND ORS. 
v. 
SHRI GIRDHARBHAI RAMJIBHAI CHHANIYARA 
AND ORS. 
MAY 5, 1997 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : 
Order 1, Rule 8, Order 39, Rule 2, Order 43, Rule I-Marketing 
Committee-Adve1tisement i11viti11g offers for allotment of shops in new 
market yard-Suit filed for pe1petual injunction restraini11g Market Committee 
from making allotments-Ad interim injunction granted by trial cowt and 
confinned by High Cowt-Held, plaintiff-respondents do 11ot have at prese11t 
D a11y co11cluded right to seek for e11forcement against the Ma1ket Commit-
tee-At best they have got a right to apply for a11d seek allotment-TI1e Cowt 
has 11ot applied its mind to co11sider what would be the right which is claimed 
to be infri11ged-High Cowt has committed not 011ly manifest e1Tor of law, 
but crossed the limitations of Order 43 Rule I, i11 granti11g the relief-Specific 
E Relief Act, 1963-Ss.36 and 37-Gujarat Agiicultural Produce Market Act, 
1963. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3618 of 
1997. 
F 
From the Judgment and Ord~r dated 15.1.97 of the Gujarat High 
Court in Civil Application No. 9563/96 in A.O. No. 537 of 1996. 
H.N. Salve, Jayant Patel, Rakesh K. Khanna U. Tameem Hashmi and 
Surya Kant for the Appellants. 
G 
R.P. Bhattt and H.A Raichura for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
H 
Application for intervention is allowed. 
74 
AGRICULTIJREPRODUCEMARKEfCOMMIITEEGONDAL v. G.RCHHANIYARA 
75 
We have heard the learned counsel for both sides. 
This appeal, by special leave, arises from the judgment of the High 
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, made on January 15, 1997 in Civil 
Application No. 9563/96. 
A 
B 
A few ·admitted facts are sufficient for the disposal of this case. The 
Market Committee was constituted under the provisions of the Gujarat 
Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 (for short, the Act). Under the 
Act, the Market Committee is under the statutory obligation to declare the 
notified market area for the purpose of regulating the purchase and sale 
of notified agricultural produce within the notified market and to establish C 
it. As a facet thereof, advertisement had been published inviting offers from 
the interested persons for allotment of shops in new market yard vide 
notification dated November 23, 1991. The existing shop holders were 
informed that if they were interested to surrender the shops in the existing 
market area, they would be granted shop in the new market yard. In lieu D 
thereof, they are required to pay the value of the shop equal to 7 years' 
capitalised rent. They are designated as "shop for shop category". For 
others it is designated as A type shops and. B type shops. For A type shops 
they have tentatively fixed the price at Rs. 2.55 lakhs and for B type shops 
Rs. 2.33 lakhs have been fixed. After the advertisement so made, respon-
E 
dents No. 1 and 2 filed a suit for perpetual injunction in a representative 
capacity under Order I, Rule 8, CPC restraining the Market Committee 
from making allotment of the shops and ad interim injunction under Order 
XXXIX, Rule 2, CPC was sought for and was granted by the trial Court. 
On appeal, it was confirmed by the High Court with a further rider with F 
which we deal at a later stage. Thus this appeal by special leave. 
The primary question that arises for consideration is whether the 
respondents have any right to be enforced by way of injunction? Part III 
of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 deals in that behalf by way of preventive 
relief. Section 36 postulates that "[P)reventive relief is granted at the G 
discretion of the court by injunction, temporary or perpetual." Temporary 
or perpetual injunctions are regulated by Section 37, which reads as under: 
"37. Temporary and perpetual injunctions. - (1) Temporary injunc-
tions are such as are to continue until a specified time, or until the H 
76 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP.1 S.C.R. 
further order of the court, and they may be granted at any stage 
of a suit, and are regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 
(5 of 1908) 
(2) A perpetual injunction can only be granted by the decree 
made at the hearing and upon the merits of the suit; the defendant 
is thereby perpetually enjoined from the assertion of a right, or 
from the commission of an act, which would be contrary to the 
right of the plaintiff." 
It is seen t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.