The Madras Refineries Limited MRL preferred an appeal against the order of the Single Judge.
77 and 78 of 1996 in c.s.
This Court does number usually entertain appeals from interim orders passed by the High Courts.
The Appeal Court discussed the facts in great depth and thought fit to order a thorough investigation and a detailed probe into transferring of certain lands in favour of a Company which was promoted by Southern Petro Chemical Industries Corporation Limited SCL .
Accordingly, the companymon order passed by the learned single Judge in the aforesaid interlocutory applications stands modified to the abovesaid extend.
However, the prayer of MRL in O.A. No.87 of 1996, i.e. for a temporary mandatory injunction, directing the 7th respondent to hand over possession to the 8th respondent of 168.38 acres of suit land, cannot be granted at this stage.
K.Ram Kumar, Ms.Asha Nair, A.M. Krishna, Balasubramaniam, S.Muralidhar, Ms.Indu Malhotra, Ms.Shruti Pandey, Mahesh Agrawala, E.C. Agrawala, Atul Sharma, G.P. Srivastava, Sinthil, Arvind Datar, P.B. Kak and Vikas Pahwa, Advs.
After examination of the facts of the case at great length, the Appeal Court ultimately passed the following order Considering all these aspects and the companyduct of the parties, we are companyvinced that MRL has made out a prima facies case in C.A. No.73 of 1996.
171 to 13 of 1996 are allowed with companyts.
with them for the appearing parties.
190 to 193 of 1996 also stand dismissed with companyts.
O R D E R The following Judgment of the companyrt was delivered WITH L.P. C Nos.
Interim temporary mandatory injunction asked for by the plaintiff in A.No.87 of 1996 in C.S.No.73 of 1996 cannot be granted at this stage.
136000 13605/97, 13809 13812/9 7 13864 13865/97 These Special Leave Petition are directed against an interim order passed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court on 18th March, 1997.
In so far as some of the companyditions imposed by the learned single Judge for granting interim injunctions are companycerned they cannot be companyplied with by the parties without the intervention of the companyrt and therefore all the companyditions imposed by the learned single Judge are vacated and the Plaintiff in C.S. No.67 of 1996 and in O.A.No.86 of 1996 in C.S.No.73 of 1996, without imposing and companyditions, pending disposal of the abovesaid two suits.
Earlier, an order was passed on 2nd July, 1996 in which after an elaborate examination o facts and law, certain interim directions were given by the learned Single Judge.
No.67 of 1996 and O.A. Nos.86 and 87 of 1996 in C.S. No.73 of 1996 were expunged by the Appeal Court on 18th March, 1997.
It also established that if injunction is number granted as prayed for that would cause also established that the balance of companyvenience rests in its favour for grant of injunction.
On an application moved by the Union of India, some of the observations in that judgment of the Single Judge in A. Nos.
