Supreme Court - Daily Orders
R.V. Ravi Kumar Etc. Etc. vs Liquor India Limited And Others Etc. ... on 29 October, 2015
Bench: Dipak Misra, Prafulla C. Pant
1
ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.5 SECTION XIIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).
25520-25521/2015
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20/03/2015
in CMAMP No. 395/2015,13/03/2015 in CMA No. 65/2015,20/03/2015 in
CMA No. 65/2015 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Hyderabad
For The State Of Telangana And The State Of Andhra Pradesh)
R.V. RAVI KUMAR ETC. ETC. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
LIQUOR INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for bringing on record the additional facts and
interim relief and office report)
(For Final Disposal)
Date : 29/10/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT
For Petitioner(s) Mr. V. Shekhar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Manoj Saxena, Adv.
Mr. Ram Krishna, Adv.
For Dr. Kailash Chand, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Vadlamani Seshagiri, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Singh, Adv.
Mr. Rachit Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Shruti Khanijow, Adv.
For M/s. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Heard Mr. V. Shekhar, learned senior counsel along with Mr.Manoj Saxena, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2015.10.30 as well as Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel along with 16:00:50 IST Reason:
Mr. Neeraj Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents.2
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we modify the order dated 20.03.2015 passed by the High Court of judicature of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana at Hyderabad in C.M.A.M.P. No. 395 of 2015 in C.M.A.No. 65 of 2015 as under :-
1) The respondent-Company shall not alienate the immovable and movable assets of the company. Be it clarified that movable assets would only mean plant and machinery;
2) The business activities of the respondent-company, as required according to the Rules, namely, A. P. Distilleries (Manufacture of IMFL) Rules, 2006, would include grant of sub-leases for the purpose mentioned in the Rule and hence, the same is permitted. The respondent-company shall not create any sub-lease for any other purpose.
3) Neither the respondents nor the sub-lessees can claim any right on the basis of the lease created under the Rules. It is clarified that if the respondents lose the litigation initiated by the plaintiffs-petitioners, they cannot continue the litigation on the ground that there are people who are on sub-lease basis, but can only fight on the basis of their rights. Similarly, the persons, who are given the sub-lease in accordance with the Rules for the purpose of carrying out the activities of the company, shall not put forward any claim before a Court of law on the basis of the said sub-lease.
With the aforesaid modification in the impugned order dated 20.03.2015, the Special Leave Petitions are disposed of. No costs.
3Apart from the aforesaid modification, the learned Additional District Judge, L.B. Nagar, Andhra Prdesh, who is in seisin of Original Suit No. 103 of 2013 shall dispose of the suit by end of June, 2016.
The parties may produce a copy of this order before the learned Additional District Judge. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of.
(Jayant Kumar Arora) (H. S. Parasher)
Sr. P.A. Court Master