Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Pernod Ricard India Private Limited vs United Spirits Limited on 6 September, 2023
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sudhanshu Dhulia
1
ITEM NO.19 COURT NO.2 SECTION IV-B
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). 17674/2023
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 21-03-2023
in FAO-COM No. 2/2022 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana
At Chandigarh)
PERNOD RICARD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION )
Date : 06-09-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. CA Sundaram, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Hemant Singh, Adv.
Ms. Mamta Jha, Adv.
Mr. Mohit D. Ram, AOR
Mr. Sambhav Jain, Adv.
Mr. Anuraj Tirthankar, Adv.
Mr. Akhil Saxena, Adv.
Ms. Monisha Handa, Adv.
Ms. Rajul Shrivastav, Adv.
Mr. Anubhav Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv.
Mrs. Aparajita Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Aman Sharma, Adv.
Ms. V. Mohini, Adv.
Ms. Aarti Aggarwal, Adv.
Mr. Sarthak Chiller, Adv.
Mr. Rohit Lochav, Adv.
Mr. Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva, AOR
Signature Not Verified
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Digitally signed by Charanjeet Kaur Date: 2023.09.06 17:04:17 IST Reason: SLP(C) No. 17674/2023 2 After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, the impugned orders being concurrent which is for the purposes of determination of interim arrangement pending suit cannot in any manner influence the final determination of the suit, we would not like to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
However, we find that the suit is at an initial stage for almost 3 years and in a suit of this nature even issues have not been framed. On our query, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are only two witnesses to be examined and so is the position with the respondent.
The aforesaid being the position, we are of the view that from the stage of framing of issues to such a trial and arguments, it should not take more than six months to complete the trial proceedings. We order accordingly.
The concerned District Judge, Mohali to proceed with the suit accordingly.
At the insistence of counsel for the petitioner, we clarify that it is well settled proposition of law that decisions on interlocutory applications are only made to protect rival interests pending suit. Somehow the interim applications itself are treated as final decision but it is not so. In all such SLP(C) No. 17674/2023 3 cases, interim arrangements should be made and the trial should proceed rather than to spend time only on interlocutory applications. That protects the petitioner against the apprehension that the impugned judgment may be cited in other Court qua petitioner’s cases of a similar nature.
Needless to say that the trial Court will not be influenced at the stage of final decision based on evidence recorded with the observations at the interlocutory stage whether of the trial Court or the High Court.
The special leave petition is dismissed.
[CHARANJEET KAUR] [POONAM VAID]
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
SLP(C) No. 17674/2023