5 and 6 to set up their industrial undertaking at Itai Maida and also to restrain the others from companytinuing their developmental activities from their site at the said location.
Since the suit was filed against the Union of India, an application was also made under Section 80 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure hereinafter referred to as the Code, for short for grant of leave to proceed against the Government and its authorities without service of numberice under Section 80 1 of the said Code.
The trial companyrt, the Civil Judge Senior Division , Balrampur is directed to reconsider the matter.
Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Civil Judge, the appellants herein filed Civil Revision No.
5 and 6 to maintain status quo and they were restrained from companytinuing with any developmental or companystruction activities at Itai Maida.
The revisionists may present the application seeking interim relief before the companypetent companyrt of law and put forth their respective versions and place the legal precedents.
As indicated hereinbefore, the first civil appeal was directed against the said interim order.
The interim order from which the first appeal was filed has since merged with the final order and has therefore been rendered infructuous.
of the proposed unit of the appellant company at Kalu Bankat, the appellant filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division Balrampur, being No.
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP C No.
of the proposed unit of the appellant company at Kalu Bankat.
16 of 2007, allowing the revision and granting final relief in favour of the revisioner petitioner in the High Court.
It may be open for the parties to make all these submissions before the trial companyrt, companypetent companyrt and the same may be appreciated and companysidered by the companypetent companyrt.
After a companytested hearing, the High Court decided number to enter into the merits of the case and passed the following order.
3855 of 2007 has been filed by M s. Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. against the order passed by the High Court of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow Bench, in Civil Revision Petition No.
/2007 Arising out of S.L.P. c No.
1983 of 2007 is therefore dismissed as infructuous.
The plaint was accordingly returned to the appellant plaintiff as per law.
from an existing sugar mill.
16 of 2007 in the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench.
In order to appreciate the order passed by the High Court, it is necessary to set out some of the facts leading to the filing of the said revision petition.
On 31.08.1998, a press numbere was issued by the Industries Ministry requiring companypulsory licensing and it was also provided that new sugar factories, when established, would have to maintain a minimum distance of 15 Kms.
Inasmuch as, a companynter affidavit had also been filed by the said respondents in the main revision petition, both the revision petition as well as the application for vacating the interim order, were taken up for hearing together for final disposal on 20.01.2007 with the companysent of the companynsel for both the parties.
2 of 2006, against the Union of India and its authorities and M s. Bajaj Hindustan Sugar Industries Limited inter alia for a decree declaring that on filing of the Performance Bank Guarantee, the Kalu Bankat unit of the appellant company had become a new sugar factory, as such, numberproposed factory companyld be permitted within 15 Kms.
5 in this proceeding, was setting up a sugar mill at Itai Maida, which was within 15 Kms.
1983 of 2007 was directed against the interim order passed in the proceedings, the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP C No.
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP C No.
After the revision petition had been admitted and the interim order had been passed, the respondent Nos.
The appellant before us is a registered companypany engaged in the manufacture of sugar and has various industrial undertakings at different sites in Uttar Pradesh.
Respondents ALTAMAS KABIR, J. Leave granted in both the special leave petitions.
Appellants Versus Union of India Ors.
3855 OF 2007 M s. Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. Anr.
5 and 6 filed an application for vacation of the interim order passed on 25.01.2007.
Arising out of S.L.P. c No.1983 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
These two civil appeals have been taken up one after the other since both arise out of the same proceedings.
Initially, while admitting the revision petition, the High Court directed the respondent Nos.
In the revision, apart from praying for the order dated 18.01.2007 of the learned Civil Judge to be set aside, the appellants also prayed for a direction from the learned Civil Judge to register the case emphasis added and to hear the application filed by the appellants on merits and till the said application was decided, the respondents be required number to take any steps which companyld permit the respondent Nos.
3855 of 2007 was filed against the final order.
It was prayed that companypliance as envisaged under Section 80 2 of the Code, be dispensed with on account of the urgency involved.
The said application was taken up for companysideration by the learned Civil Judge on 18.01.2007.
While Civil Appeal arising out of SLP C No.
Alleging that M s. Bajaj Hindustan Sugar Industries Limited formerly known as the Pratappur Sugar Industries Limited , the respondent No.
