2018 (10) TMI 272 - SC - Indian Laws

Disposal of Land remaining idle - closure of Joint Venture - rehabilitation scheme under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Protection) Act, 1985 - 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. Held that - The parties 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 - thus, 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. Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendranformer Judge of this Court is requested to act as a sole Arbitrator for deciding the dispute(s), which have arisen between the parties to this appeal - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against High Court's judgment on disposal of land dispute through writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
The appellant, a Government of India Undertaking, engaged in manufacturing life-saving drugs, entered into a joint venture for manufacturing PenicillinG, which eventually failed. The matter was referred to the BIFR for a rehabilitation scheme. Disputes arose between the appellant and the State's authority, MHADA, regarding the disposal of land owned by the appellant. The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking resolution of the land dispute. The High Court dismissed the petition, stating that the proper remedy would be to file a suit in the Civil Court rather than a writ petition under Article 226/227.

The Supreme Court intervened, emphasizing the need for an amicable settlement between the parties, considering the nature of the dispute and past judgments. The parties were given time to settle the matter out of court, but they expressed an inability to reach a mutual agreement. Consequently, the parties requested the matter to be referred to a sole arbitrator for resolution. The Supreme Court, taking into account the parties' status, previous judgments, and legal provisions, appointed Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran, a former judge of the Court, as the sole arbitrator to decide the disputes. The parties were directed to obtain his consent within two weeks, and the arbitrator was tasked with determining the terms of reference for adjudication.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by referring the disputes, including the land dispute, to a sole arbitrator for resolution, highlighting the importance of an amicable settlement and the role of arbitration in resolving such disputes.