: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.819 OF 2004 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.819 OF 2004 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.819 OF 2004 ALONG WITH ALONG WITH ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1120 OF 2004 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1120 OF 2004 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1120 OF 2004 AND AND AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1121 OF 2004 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1121 OF 2004 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1121 OF 2004 Maharashtra Industrial Development Corpn).. Appellant Versus Alok Industries Limited ).. Respondent Mrs.Deepa Chavan i/b.M/s.Little & Co. for the Appellant Mr.Arif S.Doctor with Ms.Sushma Kadam i/b.Arvind Rathod & Co. for the Respondent. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 20TH DECEMBER 2004 DATED: 20TH DECEMBER 2004 DATED: 20TH DECEMBER 2004 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . This Appeal From Order arises on account of the Exhibit 5 application being allowed by the trial Court and the trial Court granting temporary injunction as sought for by the Respondent against the notice dated 24th October 2001 or disconnecting the water supply to the Respondent Company at Pawane, Navi Mumbai till the final disposal of the Suit. 2. Mrs.Chavan for the Appellant submits that inadvertently the Appellants did not produce the : 2 : Resolution of the Board dated 3rd October 1997, the Circular dated 5th November 1997 and the report of the Auditor General of India in respect of the non charging of differential rate of water. She submits that these documents are vital to the case of the Appellant and, therefore, the Appellant has filed Civil Application No.1121 of 2004 for bringing on record these two documents besides several others. According to her, the trial Court considered the Circular which was issued pursuant to the Resolution of 3rd October 1997. This Circular dated 5th November 1997 has been considered by our Court in the case of M/s.Emtex Industries (India) Ltd. and another vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and another, 2004 (4) ALL 2004 (4) ALL 2004 (4) ALL MR 185 MR 185 MR 185 which refers to the Resolution. She submits that in view of this judgment, the action taken by the Appellant cannot be faulted. 3. In my view, the trial Court must have an opportunity to consider the Resolution of the Board dated 3rd October 1997 which is referred to in the Circular of 5th November 1997, the Circular itself and the Report of the Auditor General of India before any finding can be arrived at as to whether the action of the Appellant can be faulted. All these documents will have to be considered by the trial Court before arriving : 3 : at any decision on the application under Exhibit 5. 4. Matter remanded back to the trial Court to be decided afresh taking into consideration the Board Resolution dated 3rd October 1997, the Circular dated 5th November 1997 and the Report of the Auditor General of India. 5. During the pendency of Exhibit 5 application, the Appellant and the Respondent will maintain status quo as of today. 6. Appeal accordingly disposed of. 7. In view of the Appeal From Order being disposed of, nothing survives in Civil Application Nos.1120 of 2004 and 1121 of 2004 and both the Civil Applications are disposed of accordingly.