LPA No. 953 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 953 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision July, 07, 2011 Poshak Agrivet Pvt. Ltd. & others ------Appellants Versus State of Haryana & others ----Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Addl. A.G. Haryana for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Mr. Suvineet Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos. 6 and 7. Mr. V.K. Sachdeva, Advocate for respondent No. 8. Mr. Parminder Singh, Advcoate for respondent No.9. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.10. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the interlocutory order dated 27.04.2011, which has been passed on two different applications, namely, CM No. 1832 of LPA No. 953 of 2011 (O&M) -2- 2011 and 5213 of 2000 in CWP No. 18105 of 2011. The interlocutory order passed in the first application stipulates that appellant-petitioner No.2 is to deposit the entire outstanding amount to the Axis Bank- respondent No.10 within 10 days. The Bank was required to intimate payable amount within two days to appellant-petitioner No.2. The stocks were to continue to remain in the premises and parties were restrained from dealing with the stocks till finally decided by the competent Court or any further order passed in this regard. The payment of amount was not to create any right in favour of appellant-petitioner No.2 and the amount paid was to be taken into consideration at the time of settlement of accounts. It was further directed that the key of the godown was to be kept by the Court. 2. On the second application, the learned Single Judge has directed that the live stock detailed in (Annexure P-1) should be sold by the Officer to be nominated by the Director, National Diary Research Institute, Karnal in presence of the parties. Director was to nominate the officer within one week from receipt of copy of the order and then nominated officer was to issue a public notice for sale of live stock with intimation to the parties to the petition. The sale proceeds were to be deposited in the Court. 3. When the matter came up for hearing on 26.05.2011, learned counsel for the appellant argued that maize crop/ live stock is perishable and the same has been ordered to be kept in company's premises and the parties have been restrained from dealing with the same. 4. In response to the notice of motion, the respondents have appeared and have pointed out that there is serious dispute between LPA No. 953 of 2011 (O&M) -3- appellant-petitioner No.2 and respondent No.8-Rajinder Gupta, who also claims himself to be the Director of the Company namely, Poshak Agrivet Private Limited, Karnal-petitioner No.1. The Bank had its dues, which are recoverable from the Company. It was on the application filed by the Bank that appellant-petitioner No.2 had agreed to pay the entire outstanding amount. However, the learned Single Judge recognised that the stocks are perishable and did not pass any order as pointed out by the learned counsel for appellant-petitioner No.2. Even parties are not permitted to deal with the stock. There can be other ways and means to save these stocks from further decay because it has been claimed that the stocks are in the premises for last about 1 ½ years whereas shelf life of the maize stock is stated to be about 9 months. 5. Keeping in view the various facts and circumstances and serious dispute between appellant-petitioner No.2 and respondent No.8, we deem it appropriate to relegate the appellant to press the issue with regard to perishable nature of the maize stock before the learned Single Judge. We have adopted the aforesaid course in order to avoid any unnecessary delay because the main matter is still pending before the Learned Single Judge and it would facilitate the expeditious disposal of the dispute between the parties. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of and the appellants are given liberty to press all the issues raised before us before the learned Single Judge where they shall appear on 22.07.2011, which is the date already fixed. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merit of the controversy and any observation hereinabove shall not be construed as expression of opinion in any manner LPA No. 953 of 2011 (O&M) -4- whatsoever. The order passed by the learned Single Judge on 27.04.2011 shall not be given effect till 22.07.2011, which shall be subject to further order by the learned Single Judge. (M.M KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) July 07, 2011 JUDGE Atul