Calcutta High Court
Shree Laxmi Iron & Steel Works Pvt.Ltd vs Research Designs & Standard ... on 4 August, 2017
Bench: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, Shivakant Prasad
ORDER SHEET
GA No.2325 of 2017
GA No.3396 of 2016
APOT No.392 of 2016
CS No.360 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
SHREE LAXMI IRON & STEEL WORKS PVT.LTD.
Versus
RESEARCH DESIGNS & STANDARD ORGANISATION (RDSO)& ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA
AND The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHIVAKANT PRASAD Date : 4th August, 2017.
Appearance:
Mr. Jayanta Mitra, Sr. Advocate Mr. Jishnu Saha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Debnath Ghosh, Advocate Ms. Srinanda Bose, Advocate Mr. Avijit Dey, Advocate ....for Appellant/Plaintiff.
Mr J. Chowdhury, Advocate Mr. Chayan Gupta, Advocate Mr. A. Basu, Advocate.
Mr. Dwip Raj Basu, Advocate ...for RITES Ltd.
Mr.L.K.Chatterjee, Advocate Ms. Aparana Banerjee, Advocate.
..for RDSO.
Mr. Dilip Kumar Chatterjee, Advocate.
Mr. Dipanjan Datta, Advocate. Mr. Atanu Basu, Advocate.
Ms. Rituparna Saha, Advocate.
Mr. Jay manna, Advocate.
Ms. Reshma Chatterjee, Advocate.
..for Konkan Railways.2
The Court:-An application has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant for clarification and/or modification of the order dated 16th January, 2017 passed by the other Division Bench of this Court. The following interim order was passed by the other Division Bench on 16th January, 2017:
"In our opinion, since the suit was confined to the issuance of the order dated 5th December, 2012, prima facie, it was not proper to stop the production of other goods. Therefore, we direct by way of ad-interim relief that the appellants may supply other goods except metal liners as specified in the notice dated 5th December, 2012 to the railways. It is made clear that in the event notice has already been issued with respect to other products which the appellants are contracted to supply to the railways, those products will not be manufactured."
We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Some clarification and/or modification of the said interim order is sought by Mr. Mitra, learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff/appellant.
We have heard him and also heard the learned counsel appearing for the other parties.
At a glance of the interim arrangement and/or order, which was passed by the other Division Bench of this Court on 16th January, 2017, we find that in the said order, the other Division Bench recorded that the subject matter of dispute involved in the suit relates to drg. No.RT-3738. No other item of products is in dispute in the said suit. If that be so then, in our view, interim order, if any is found necessary, can be passed in respect of the item of products which is the subject matter of the suit. It is fundamental that injunction is always passed in aid of the ultimate relief claimed in the suit and as such interim order should be restricted to the subject matter of the suit. Since no relief can be granted in respect of non-suit property in the suit, no interim order can be passed with regard to non-suit property in the suit. 3
As such, we simply clarify for the time being that until hearing of this application, the operation of that part of the interim order viz., "It is made clear that in the event notice has already been issued with respect to other products which the appellants are contracted to supply to the railways, those products will not be manufactured.", will be kept in abeyance with immediate effect as the said arrangement was made in respect of non-suit property.
Accordingly, GA No.2325 of 2017 is disposed of.
[ JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA, J. ] [SHIVAKANT PRASAD,J. ] nm