HINDUSTAN ANTIBIOTICS LIMITEDversusMAHARASHTRA HOUSING AND AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MHADA) & ORS.

                        [2018] 12 S.C.R. 747                              747


              HINDUSTAN ANTIBIOTICS LIMITED                               A
                                  v.
  MAHARASHTRA HOUSING AND AREA DEVELOPMENT
          AUTHORITY (MHADA) & ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 10203 of 2018)                        B
                        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
                                                                          C
– 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,    D
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                       E
      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
                                                                          F
[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.          G
      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.

                                                                          H
                                 747
748            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2018] 12 S.C.R.


A           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
B     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
C     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”.
D            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
E
      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.
F
             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.
G            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).

H
      HINDUSTAN ANTIBIOTICS LTD. v. MHADA & ORS.                                749
             [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

       10. The Division Bench of the High Court, by impugned order,             A
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,
                                                                                B
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 (MHADA), the matter should be
amicably settled by the parties concerned sitting across the table rather       C
than to drag the dispute(s) in the Court. It was also felt that it is more so
keeping in view the observations of this Court made in Oil And Natural
Gas Commission And Another vs. Collector Of Central Excise,
1995 Supp (4) SCC 541 and Oil & Natural Gas Corpn. Ltd. vs. City
& Industrial Development Corporation, Maharashtra Ltd. And                      D
Others, 2007 (7) SCC 39 and the mandate of Order 27 Rule 5 of the
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) which
cast a duty on the Court to ensure that such dispute should be resolved
amicably.
      12. The parties were accordingly granted time to report by the            E
next date of hearing of the outcome of their talk and the mode on which
the disputes arising between them can be settled. The matter was
accordingly adjourned for 28.09.2018.
        13. The parties, however, on the next date of hearing expressed
that it is not possible to come to any mutually acceptable terms due to         F
myriad reasons. The parties, however, requested to refer the matter to
any sole Arbitrator and left it to the Court to pass appropriate orders in
that behalf including an order appointing an Arbitrator to decide the
dispute(s) by an award.
        14. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in       G
view the nature of the controversy, the observations of this Court made
in both the ONGC cases cited supra, the status of the parties and
lastly, the mandate contained in Order 27 Rule 5 of the Code, we are of
the considered opinion that the various disputes which have arisen

                                                                                H
750              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2018] 12 S.C.R.


A     between the parties including the one which is the subject matter of the
      writ petition/appeal be referred to the sole Arbitrator for his decision.
            15. We, accordingly, request Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran- former
      Judge of this Court to act as a sole Arbitrator for deciding the dispute(s),
      which have arisen between the parties to this appeal.
B           16. The parties are accordingly directed to obtain the consent of
      Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran to act as a sole Arbitrator on the terms
      suggested by him. Let it be done within 2 weeks.
            17. We leave it for the learned Arbitrator to decide the terms of
      reference for its adjudication after hearing the parties.
C
              18. The appeal stands accordingly disposed of.
      Kalpana K. Tripathi                                        Appeal disposed of.




D




E




F




G




H