Karnataka High Court
Balaji Vegetable Products P. Ltd. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 24 April, 1986
Equivalent citations: AIR1987KANT113, [1989]65COMPCAS134(KAR), AIR 1987 KARNATAKA 113, ILR 1987 KANT 1536
JUDGMENT
1. In this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
"(a) Issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, as the case may be, directing the first respondent to amend the Industrial Licence No. L/No. 28 (2)/N-12/70, dated December 14, 1970, for the manufacture of 50 tonnes of vanaspati per day be entering the name of the petitioner as owner of the said manufacturing plant forthwith or with such time as this hon'ble court might deem fit and to return the same to the petitioner;
(b) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction, as the case may be directing the second respondent to supply the prescribed quota of imported oil required for the manufacture of vanaspati at the manufacturing unit at Sitapur, Uttar Prades, run by the petitioner company due from January 30, 1976, upto date and also to direct him to allot the prescribed quota hereafter and also to allot the prescribed quota of coal and other raw materials required for the operation of the plant.
(c) Pass such other orders just and expedient in the circumstances of the case including the award of costs".
2. The petitioner came to be incorporated as a company under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act. On January 17, 1976, a certificate of registration was produced by the petitioner as per annexure D. One Mr. R. N. Agarwal, managing director of Sri Balaji Textile Mills P. Ltd., Bangalore, entered into an agreement with the third respondent to purchase the industrial undertaking known as "Narain Vegetable Products" situate at Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh, owned by the third respondent, on December 17, 1975, for a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs and paid a such of Rs. 2,01,000 through a cheques. A receipt to that effect was executed by the third respondent. A copy of the same is produced as annexure A. The possession of the industrial unit in question, according to the case of the petitioner, was handed over on January 3, 1976, as per annexure B. The further case of the petitioner is that an agreement for sale dated January 9, 1976, produced as annexure C was also executed by Sri R. N. Agarwal as managing director of Sri Balaji Textile Mills P. Ltd. and by Sri N. K. Seth as the director of the third respondent on behalf third respondent; that the petitioner was put in possession of the assets mentioned in the schedule to the agreement, and from that time it has been exclusively managing and running the industrila unit; that on January 28, 1976, an application was sent to the second repspondent informing him that the petitioner has taken over M/s. Narain Vegetable Products, Sitapur, and starting production of vanaspati from January 30, 1976, in the name and title of M/s. Balaji Vegetable Product Pvt. Ltd., Sitapur, and shall be selling the product, under the brand name of "Suhagin". Thereafter, the petitioner sought for substituting its name in the licence as per rule 19A of the Registration and Licensing of Industrial Undertakings Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), and also sought for allotment of imported oil for the production of vanaspati oil. As the name of the petitioner was not substituted on the ground that it was being opposed by third respondent, the petitioner has approached this court for the aforesaid reliefs.
3. The respondents have resisted the petition. They, inter alia, contend that no part of the cause of action has arisen within in jurisdiction of this court; that the petitioner has not become the owner of the industrial undertaking; that the petitioner has filed a suit bearing O.S.No. 91 of 1981 in the Court of Civil Judge, Sitapur, for specific performance; that the suit is also being resisted by the third respondent and that the petitioner has not complied with all the terms of the agreement for sale.
4. In the statement of objections filed by the third respondent on March 16,1977, the agreement for sale produced as annexure C is not disputed. Regarding the letter dated January 3, 1976, produced as annexure B, which is also admitted, it is contended that the possess of the petitioner was not exclusive but it was joint along with the third respondent.
5. Having regard to the contentions of the parties, the following point arise for consideration:
(1) Whether any part of the cause of action can be held to have arisen within the jurisdiction of this court?
(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to have its name substituted in the licence relating to the industrial undertaking of M/s. Narain Vegetable Products, Sitapur, issued under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act. 1951 (hereinafter referredto as "the Act"), in place of the third respondent?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to have a direction issued to the section respondent to supply the prescribed quota of imported oil required for manufacture of vanaspati at the manufacturing unit at Sitapur known as "Narain Vegetable Products, Sitapur"?
4. Point No. 1.- No doubt on the date when the agreement to sell was arrived at, the petitioner was not incorporate as a company. But the agreement dated January 8, 1976, which is not disputed by the third respondent, specifically refers to the petitioner which was to be promoted shortly by the buyer with the main object of commencintg business in vegetable oil products and allied business with the aid of the assets from the seller. Thus, the agreement can very well be accepted as having been made in favour of the petitioner. That it is so is also not disputed.
5. The head office of the petitioner is at No. B-82, Industrial Estate, Peenya, Bangalore. A letter dated February 28, 1976, in connection with the substitution of the name of the petitioner in the licence relating to the industrial undertaking in question was addressed to the petitioner to its Bangalore address informing the petitioner that within fourteen days from the date of change in the ownership, notice has to be given in writing of the fact and also the licence forwarded to the Ministry of Industry and Civil Supplies for making necessary amendment, and that the petitioner has not, however, intimated the second respondent as to on what date the industrial undertaking in question was taken over by it. It was also further intimated that the matter with regard to amending the licence may be taken up with the Ministry of Industry and Civil Supplies at the earliest. The communication also sought for further information. With reference to the aforesaid letter, the petitioner addressed another letter dated March 22, 1976, giving all the necessary information sought for, in the aforesaid communication dated February 28, 1876. The said letter reads as follows:
"The Dy. Director (Vanaspati), Govt. of India, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, Directorate of Sugar & Vanaspati, Deptt. of Food, New Delhi.
Dear Sir, Ref.: Taking over the Narain Vegetable products, Sitapur, and change of industrial licence No. L/28(2)-N-12/70, dated 14-12-1970.
With reference to your letter No. 14-VP(1) 155/76/885 dated February 28, 1976, we have to inform you that we have taken over the industrial unit named as M/s. Narain Vegetable Product, Sitapur, with effect from January 8, 1976, and in this connection, we have already informed the under Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Industrial Development and Internal Trade, New Delhi, vide our registered letter No. BVP/76/302, dated January 21/31, 1976, and our subsequent reminder No. BVP/76/769, dated February 13/14, 1976.
We are furnishing to the Under Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Industries and Civil Supplies (Department of Industrial Development, Secretariat for Industrial Approvals (L.A. Section-III), New Delhi, a copy of the memorandum and articles of association of our company as desired by them, vide their letter No. 723/LA-II/76/LA-II, dated February 23, 1976, and a copy of the same is also enclosed herewith for your perusal and doing the needful.
Further, as desired by you in your letter number reference in para 3, we are enclosing herewith a copy of the memorandum and articles of association of our company along with the list indicating the name and address of the board of directors of our company.
Hope your honour will be satisfied with the documentary evidence submitted by us in support of our request for necessary amendments in the industrial licence and will approve the labels at the earliest."
6. There ;is also another letter dated February 3, 1977, produced as annexure Q sent by the Ministry of Industry, Department of Industrial Development, to the petitioner to its Bangalore address, which reads thus:
To M/s. Balaji Vegetable Products (P)Ltd., B-82, Industrial Estate, Peenya, Bangalore.
Sub.: Transfer of Industrial Licence No. L/28(2)/N-12/70, dated 14-12- 1970 issued on favour of M/s. Narain Vegetable Products.
Dear Sir, I am directed to refer to your representation No. BVP/76/130/4214, dated December 16, 1976, addressed to the Minister for Industry on the above subject, and to say that it has been noted that you have acquired the factory of M/s. Narain Vegetable Products, sitapur. It has, however, been observed from paras 7 and 8 of the sale deed executed by you with M/s. Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. (P) Ltd., that the buyer shall be free to continue the business in the existing business premises or to shift the factory to any other place of his choice at any time after making full payment of Rs. 50 lakhs. It is also stipulated therein that the buyer agrees that the seller will have a lien on the assets mentioned in schedule I of the sale deed until the entire sale consideration is paid in the form of dischargin the liabilities referred to in schedule II of the sale deed. From letter No. ISM/75/76/929, dated August 17, 1976, from M/s. Lakshmiji Sugar Mills co. (P) Ltd., the original owner, it has been noticed that they have not received full payment in terms of the agreement and the matter has gone to the court. Moreover, the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation (Deptt. of Food, Dte. of S & V) who are administratively concerned with vanaspati industry and who were approached for a decision in regard to change in ownership of the licence under this Ministry's letter of even number dated September 1, 1976, have not recommended the case so far. In the circumstances explained above, it is not possible for this Ministry to endorse the change in ownership particularly when the matter is sub judice.
7. Thus, the first respondent has ultimately refused to endorse the change in the ownership on the ground that the matter is sub judice. It is clear that part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this court, inasmuch as the communication intimating taking over of the industrial undertaking as per annexure F dated January 28, 1976, has been sent from Bangalore and the communication dated February 28, f1976, annexure G, has been sent by the second respondent to the petitioner to its Bangalore address. The petitioner, in turn, has replied to the same from Bangalore as per annexure-H on March 22, 1976. By the communication sent to its Bangalore address as per annexure Q, the petitioner has been intimated by the first respondent that it is not possible to endorse the change in ownership of the licence. Cause of action is a bundle of facts necessary for the purpose of granting the relief. In the instant case, one of the reliefs, sought for by the petitioner is to direct the first respondent to transfer the industrial licence No. L/28(2)/N-12/70, dated December 14, 1970, for manufacturing 50 tonnes of vanaspati oil per day by entering the name of the petitioner as owner of the industrial undertaking in question.
8. The facts necessary for granting the aforesaid relief are whether action to have the change effected has been taken within the jurisdiction of this court; whether decision in the regard has been communicated to the petitioner to its address at Bangalore which is within the jurisdiction of this court. These things have taken place within the jurisdiction of this court.
9. In addition to this, it is also pertinent to notice that the registered office of the petitioner is at Bangalore. Under section 15A of the ACt where a company owning an industrial undertaking is being wound up by or under the supervision of the High Court, and the business of such company is not being continued, the Central Government, may, if it is of opinion that it is necessary in the interest of public and, in particular, in the interest of production, supply or distribution of articles or class of articles relatable to the concerned scheduled industry, to investigate into the possibility of running or restarting the industrial undertaken, an application in this regard has to be made to the High Court. As per section 3(cc) of the Act, "High Court" means the High Court having jurisdiction in relation to the place at which the registers office of the company is situated. Thus, for the purpose of section 15A and Chapter III- AA of the Act, it is this High Court which is entitled to have jurisdiction over the petitioner-industry.
10. Even otherwise, it is already pointed out that a part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this High Court. In the view I take on the facts and circumstances established in the case, several decisions, W.W. Joshi v. State of Bombay, , Damomal Kausomal Raisinghani v. Union Of India, , Shiv Shanker Lal Gupta Khandelwal v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 393 (Delhi), Purtabpore Co. Ltd. v. Cane Commissioner, Bihar, AIR 1969 All 295, Dr. P.S. Rao v. Union Government [1972] 2 Mys LJ 302, M.G. George v. Assistant Director, Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau, Kohima, , Asiatic Labour Corporation v. Union of India, , Union of India v. Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd., , and Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd., In re, , relied upon by learned counsel for the third respondent are not of any assistance because, as already found, the facts necessary for the purpose of granting relief have taken place within the jurisdiction of this court. The impact of it is also felt within the jurisdiction of this court, because of registered office of the company is at Bangalore. It is not a mere notional or emotional impact. The Central Government's refusal to endorse the change in ownership of the industrila undertaking in question, materially affects the working of the industrial undertaking which is situated at Sitapur in the State of Uttar Pradesh; and as a result thereof, production is affected. Consequently, its effect or impact is equally felt at the registered office of the unit which is at Bangalore.
11. Accordingly, point No. 1 is answered in favour of the petitioner.
12. Point No. 2.- No doubt a suit for specific performance is pending between the parties. An ex parte temporary injunction order passed in O.S. No. 1226 of 1976 by the then Principal Munsiff Court at Bangalore was vacated on November 15, 1976. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the agreement for sale entered into by Sri R. N. Agarwal on behalf of the petitioner and Sri N.k. Seth on behalf of the third respondent dated January 8, 1976, produced as annexure C stands undisputed. The receipt of a sum of Rs. 6,50,000 as per annexure A dated December 17, 1975, is also undisputed. Annexure B which evidences handing over of possession of the industrial unit in question is also not disputed. In the suit (Suit No.91 of 1981) for specific performance filed by the petitioner in the Civil Judge Court at Sitapur, at para. 3 of the plaint. the petitioner has stated thus:
"That the plaintiff has already been put in possession by the defendant on January 3, 1976, before the final agreement dated January 8, 1976, was signed and the plaintiffs are in possession of all movable and immovable assets of Narain Vegetable Products since then, a copy of a letter confirming the delivery of possession is filed along with the suit and is part of it (annexure 2)."
13. In the written statement with reference to the aforesaid averments contained in para. 3 of the plaint, the third respondent has stated thus:
"Only delivery possession is admitted. Rest denied."
14. In para. 5 of the written statement, it is further stated thus:
"It is admitted that the plaintiff only paid a sum of Rs. 6,51,000 and failed to discharge the liabilities due to which the parties are claiming the amount from the defendant and even some of them have filed suits against the defendant."
15. In addition to this, it is very pertinent to notice that in the statement of objections filed in this writ petition by the third respondent on March 16, 1977, a true copy of the agreement produced as annexure C has not been denied. On the contrary, it is stated in paragraphs 4 to 7 as follows:
"In reply to the contents of paragraph 1 of the petition, it is admitted that Sri R. N. Agarwal entered into an agreement to sell with respondent No. 3 for the sale of the assets of Narain Vegetable Products, Sitapur (Uttar Pradesh). It is, however, emphatically denied that Sri R. N. Agarwal purchased the said unit as claimed in this paragraph of the petitioner. A reference to the agreement to sell entered into between Sri R. N. Agarwal and respondent No. 3, a copy of which has been annexed to the petition as annexure C would show that the averments made in this paragraph are palpably false and that Sri R. N. Agarwal did not purchase the said unit but merely entered into an agreement to purchase the assets of the said unit. It may also be pointed out that on the petitioner's own showing, on the day of the execution of the agreement to sell, i.e., January 8, 1976, the petitioner company had not even been incorporated and, therefore, the agreement to sell was merely between Sri R.N. Agarwal and respondent No. 3, even though respondent No. 3 had agreed to execute the sale deed in the name of Balaji Vegetable products (P.) Ltd., on the carrying out of the obligations under the agreement by Sri. R. N. Agarwal.
In reply to averments made in paragraph 2, annexure A to the petition is admitted to be a true copy of the receipt executed by respondent No. 3. Reference of the Hon'ble court is invited to the contents of this receipt which recites that the sale price fixed under the agreement to sell is Rs. 50,00,000 and Rs. 6,50,000 was agreed to be the earnest money. As per the agreement dated December 17, 1975, the possession will be given to the petitioner exclusively, only after the full payment of Rs. 50 lakhs.
It may here be mentioned that the aforesaid Sri R. N. Agarwal has failed to carry out his obligations under the agreement to sell and a sum of about Rs. 24 lakhs addition to augmented interest and penalty is still due to the answering respondent. Respondent No. 3 is ready to sell the assets of Narain Vegetable Products to the petitioner company provided the petitioner company is ready and willing to pay the balance consideration. It cannot be emphasised adequately that there is no sale of the said assets and all that has been entered into is an agreement to sell, the terms of which have been breached by the non-compliance on the part of Sri. R.N. Agarwal with the obligations undertaken by him under the agreement.
The contents of paragraph 3, as stated, are wrong and denied. Whereas it is admitted that letter dated January 3, 1976, was issued by respondent No. 3, the possession given thereby was not exclusive but joint along with that the respondent No. 3. In view of the agreement to sell covering only the sale of the assets of Narain Vegetable Products and not the entire business known as Narain Vegetable Products, as is borne out by paragraph 5 of the agreement, there was no question of this respondent giving exclusive possession of Narain Vegetable Products."
16. Thus, it is established in this case that there was an agreement for sale entered into between the petitioner and the third respondent as per annexure C and a sum of Rs. 6,50,000 was also paid for and on behalf of the petitioner towards part payment of the consideration amount agreed upon by the parties. The possession of the industrial undertaking in question was also delivered to the petitioner. The further recitals contained in the agreement of sale produced as annexure C are also material. In para 1 of the agreement of sale, it is stated thus:
"In consideration of a sum of Rs. 50,00,000 (rupees fifty lakhs only) agreed to be paid by the buyer to the seller in the manner hereinafter mentioned, the seller hereby agrees to sell the business assets of Narain Vegetable Products and more fully described in schedule I hereunder to be held by the buyer as an absolute owner thereof with possession and free from all encumbrances with effect from January 1, 1976."
17. Again, in paragraphs 4, 5 and 7 of the agreement, it is stated thus:
"It is hereby agreed between the parties hereto that it is the responsibility of the seller to discharge all other liabilities pertaining to the business `Narain Vegetable Product' carried on till December 31, 1975, and not referred to in schedule II hereunder on their own account and such liabilities shall have no bearing on the transfer of assets mentioned in Schedule I hereunder and shall be free from all encumbrances, claims, charges and the like.
It is hereby agreed between the parties that the buyer has purchased only the assets detailed in schedule I hereunder and not the entire business known as `Narain Vegetable Products' as a running concern with the result, the buyer shall in no way be responsible for the known and unknown liabilities of the said business carries on by the seller till December 31, 1975, except to the extent referred to in schedule II hereunder.
The buyer shall be free to continue the business in the existing business premises or to shift the factory to any other place of his choice at any time after making full payment of Rs. 50,00,000."
18. Thus, from the averments made in the statement of objections and the recitals contained in the agreement of sale, it is clearly established that the industrial undertaking situate at Sitapur owned by the third respondent was agreed to be sold by the third respondent to the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs and possession of the same was also delivered subject to the conditions mentioned in the agreement for sale. No doubt, as already pointed out the suit for specific performance is pending and it is the case of the third respondent that the petitioner has not complied with all the terms of the agreement, and, therefore, it is not entitled to the specific performance. I am not expressing any opinion on the point whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree for specific performance or not as this has to be decided in the Civil Suit No. 91 of 1981 pending on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge at Sitapur between the parties.
19. For the purpose of this petition, the only question that has to be considered is whether having regard to the provisions contained in the Act and the Rules, the petitioner is entitled to have the change in ownership of the industrial undertaking in question endorsed as per rule 19(2) of the Rules in the licence relating to it.
20. As per sub-rule (2) of rule 19A of the Rules, any change in the owner of a registered industrial undertaking or an undertaking in respect of which a licence or permission has been granted, the new owner thereof shall, within 14 days from the date of such change, given notice in writing of that fact to the Ministry of Industrial Development, Government of India, New Delhi, and forward the registration certificate or the licence, as the case may be, to the Ministry for endorsing thereon the change in the owner of the industrial undertaking. The first respondent has refused to endorse the change in the ownership of the industrila undertaking in question on the ground that the matter is sub judice as there is a dispute pending between the petitioner and the third respondent in a court of law. There is no doubt that the dispute is pending between the petitioner and the third respondent. But having regard to the recitals contained in the agreement of sale and the stand taken in the statement of objections and the written statement filed in the civil suit pending before the Civil Judge Court at Sitapur and the definition of the word "owner" in section 2(f) of the Act, can it be said that the petitioner is not entitled to have the change in the ownership endorsed in the licence. The expression "owner" is defined as follows :
"'owner',in relation to an industrial undertaking, means the person who, or the authority which, has the ultimate control over the affairs of the undertaking, and, where the said affairs are entrusted to a manager, managing director or managing agent, such manager, managing director or managing agent shall be deemed to be the owner of the undertaking."
21. As per the aforesaid definition, the person or the authority who has the ultimate control over the affairs of the undertaking and where the said affairs are entrusted to a manager, managing director or managing agent, such manager, managing director or managing agent shall be deemed to be the owner of the undertaking. Thus, the word "owned" of "owner" are not used in the Act in the sense in which those words are normally understood, as meaning absolute ownership or owned exclusively. These expressions are not used in the jurisprudential sense of the terms. Even the the manager or the managing director or the managing agent is deemed to be the owner of the undertaking. The Act is mainly concerned with the control, management and running of the unit and the products manufactured by it. Therefore, it even recognises the person who has the ultimate control over the affairs of the undertaking as the owner of the unit. It does not necessarily mean that a person in whose name the licence relating to the industrial undertaking coming under the provisions of the Act and Act and the Rules is issued, is the absolute owner of it. It may be possible and it is permissible, having regard to the provisions contained in the Act and Rules, to issue a licence in the name of a person who may not be the absolute owner of the unit and the absolute owner may be a different person. For the purpose of determining whether the person concerned is the owner of the unit for the purpose of the Act and the Rules, it is enough if it is shown that the person has the ultimate control over the affairs of the undertaking. It is already pointed out that the possession of the unit has been handed over to the petitioner pursuant to the agreement of sale. The recitals contained in paras 1 and 7 of the agreement of sale which are reproduced earlier go to show that the possession of the industrial undertaking in question was handed over to the petitioner and the petitioner is entitled to run it as the absolute owner thereof with possession and free from all encumbrances with effect from January 1, 1976. In addition to this, it is also further stated that the buyer shall be free to continue the business in the existing business premises or to shift the factory to any other place of his choice at any time after making full payment of Rs 50 lakhs. Thus, it is clear from the recitals contained in the agreement of sale that the petitioner is entitled to continue the business in the existing business premises as owner with possession. That being so, having regard to the undisputed facts that the possession having been handed over on January 3, 1976, and the unit had to be run by the petitioner as owner thereof, pendency of suit for specific performance should not, and does not come in the way of managing the affairs of the unit and to have the change in the ownership endorsed as per rule 19A of the Rules for the purpose of running the unit.
22. It is also contended that at the most, the court can direct the authorities to consider the petitioner's request for transfer of licence, but it cannot direct the issue of licence. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Chingleput Bottlers v Majestic Bottling Co , , and Bishnu Ram Borah v Parag Saikia, . It is not possible to accept this contention also. The authority has refused to endorse the change in ownership of the licence on the ground that the dispute is already pending between the parties in a court of law. It is already held that, having regard to the definition of the expression "owner" contained in the Act and the various other necessary facts established in the case coupled with delivery of possession, the petitioner is entitled to have the change in ownership endorsed in the licence pertaining to the industrial undertaking in question. This is not a case in which a direction to issue a licence is required to be granted. Licence has already been granted. Only a change in the ownership of the licence is required to be effected. Therefore, the aforesaid decisions are of no assistance to the petitioner. The contention is accordingly rejected.
23. For the reasons stated above, I have no hesitation in holding that subject to the result of the suit for specific performance, the petitioner is entitled to have the change in the ownership of the unit effected in the licence in its name. Point No 2 is answered accordingly.
24. Point No 3 - Having regard to the findings recorded on point No 2, it will have to be held that the petitioner is entitled to have the supply of the prescribed quota of imported oil required for manufacture of vanaspati at the manufacturing unit at Sitapur. The question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to have the quota due from January 30, 1976, up to date is left to be decided by the second respondent. The petitioner is permitted to file an application before the second respondent stating the grounds on which it is entitled to the dues from January 30, 1976. On such application being filed, the second respondent, on hearing the petitioner, shall decide the same within four months from the date of filing of the application. As far as the supply of quota from today onwards is concerned, the same be allowed as per the rules and regulations governing the allotment of imported oil in question. Point No 3 is answered accordingly.
25. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms :
(i) The communication dated February 3, 1977, produced as annexure-Q bearing No 3(15)/76-LA-II/76, issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Industry, Department of Industrial Development Secretariat for Industrial Approvals, LA II section, is hereby quashed;
(ii) Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to transfer the industrial licence No L/28(2)N-12/70, dated December 14, 1970, in favour of M/s Narain Vegetable Products, Sitapur, in the name of the petitioner, subject to result of Suit No 91 of 1981 pending on the file of the Civil Judge Court at Sitapur, for specific performance of the agreement for sale of the unit in question;
(iii) The petitioner is permitted to file an application before the second respondent claiming dues, if any, in the supply of the prescibed quota of imported oil required for manufacture of vanaspati at the manufacturing unit at Sitapur, known as Narain Vegetable Products, Sitapur, agreed to be sold to the petitioner and the possession of it has also been delivered to the petitioner, pursuant to that agreement, on January 30, 1976. On such application being filed, the second respondent shall decide the same in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner, and within four months from the date of filing the application.
(iv) The second respondent is directed to supply the prescribed quota of imported oil required for the manufacturing of vanaspati at the aforesaid industrial unit at Sitapur to the petitioner from today onwards as per the rules, regulations and orders governing the supply of the same.
(v) This order be complied with within four months from the date it is received. The reliefs granted and the directions issued in this order and the findings recorded herein are subject to the ultimate result of Civil Suit No 91 of 1981 pending on the filed of the Court of the Civil Judge, Sitapur.
(vi) It is also further made clear that this order shall not be construed as coming in the way of the parties to Civil Suit No 91 of 1981 pending on the filed of the Court of Civil Judge, Sitapur, to seek such other interim orders as are found necessary and the court to pass the same in accordance with law without affecting the reliefs granted in this order.