2001 (2) TMI 1038 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to orders dated 1.3.2000 and 10.3.2000.
2. Validity and enforcement of a compromise agreement.
3. Jurisdiction and authority of the court to issue directions to a non-party (BPCL).
4. Application for mandatory injunction against BPCL.
5. Application to recall or modify the order dated 10.1.2000.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to Orders Dated 1.3.2000 and 10.3.2000:
The appeals challenged the orders dated 1.3.2000 and 10.3.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in suit No.2274/97 at the behest of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL). The core of the dispute was whether the court had the jurisdiction to issue directions to BPCL, which was not a party to the original suit.

2. Validity and Enforcement of a Compromise Agreement:
The case involved a compromise agreement allegedly reached between the plaintiff and the defendants on 10.1.2000. The terms of the compromise included various operational and financial arrangements regarding the petrol pump business, which were recorded in a composite statement by the court. However, the compromise was not filed as a separate application and was not reduced to writing beyond the court's record.

3. Jurisdiction and Authority of the Court to Issue Directions to a Non-Party (BPCL):
BPCL was not a party to the original suit, and no relief had been claimed against it. Despite this, the learned Single Judge issued directions to BPCL to continue supplying petroleum products. BPCL contended that the court had no jurisdiction to issue such directions against a non-party and that the orders were passed ex parte without BPCL being heard.

4. Application for Mandatory Injunction Against BPCL:
The defendants filed an application (IA No.1901/2000) seeking a direction to BPCL to resume supplies of petroleum products. The court issued an interim order on 1.3.2000 directing BPCL to continue supplies. BPCL argued that mandatory injunctions should only be issued in rare cases where there are compelling circumstances, and the injury complained of is immediate and pressing. The court's power to grant such injunctions was acknowledged, but it was emphasized that they should restore status quo rather than establish a new state of things.

5. Application to Recall or Modify the Order Dated 10.1.2000:
The plaintiff filed an application (IA.276/2000) to recall or modify the order dated 10.1.2000, alleging that the defendants had flouted their undertaking given to the court. The application was supported by an affidavit, and the defendants did not file any reply opposing it. The court noted the serious disputes between the parties and the non-implementation of the compromise. Consequently, the application was allowed, absolving the parties of their respective undertakings and restoring the position as it existed prior to 10.1.2000.

Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders dated 1.3.2000 and 10.3.2000 were set aside. The court held that no relief could be granted against BPCL, a non-party to the suit, and emphasized that mandatory injunctions should be issued only in rare and compelling circumstances. The application to recall the order dated 10.1.2000 was allowed, restoring the status quo and absolving the parties of their undertakings. The suit and other pending applications were directed to be listed for disposal in accordance with law before the appropriate bench.