REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10203  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(c) No. 22296 of 2018)

Hindustan Antibiotics Limited            ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Maharashtra Housing And Area Development Authority (MHADA)  & Ors     ….Respondent(s)

                 J U D G M E N T

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 Petition filed by the appellant herein.  

1

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 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

"Penicillin­G".  

6) The appellant (Company) entered into a  joint

venture with one foreign Company­Royal Gist

Brocades, Netherlands for doing business of

manufacturing “Penicillin­G”.  However, for  myriad

reasons, it did not do well and the joint venture was

forced to close down their activities. The matter was

2

then referred to the Board for Industrial & Financial

Reconstruction (BIFR), which eventually prepared a

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.

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.  

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,

3

order, as the case may be, for disposal of the part of

the aforesaid land (plot Nos. 8 and 9).

10) The Division Bench of the High Court, by

impugned order, 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, 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

4

across the table rather 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 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 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.  

5

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 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 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 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.  

6

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.  

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.        

18) The appeal stands accordingly disposed of.     

    ………...................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

                                        …...……..................................J.

                     [S. ABDUL NAZEER] New Delhi; October 04, 2018  

7