1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL JURISDICTION APPEAL (LODGING) NO.223 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1535 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.1315 OF 2008 Reliance Transport & Travels Private Limited. ..... Appellant. (Original Plaintiff) V/s The Airport Authority of India & Ors. ..... Respondents. (Original Defendants) ------- Mr. Mukul Rohatgi Senior Advocate, Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Mr. D.J. Kakalia i/b M/s. Mulla & Mulla for the appellant. Mr. Harish Salve, Senior Advocate, Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate, Mr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate and Mr. Suresh Gupte and Ms. Meenakshi and Ms. Gayatri Goswami i/b M/s Junnarkar & Associates for respondent No.3. Mr. Mayur Shetty i/b M/s. M.V. Kini & Co. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. A.S. Marathe i/b Wadia Gandhy & Co. for respondent No.4. 2 ------ CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND V.M.KANADE, J. Order reserved on 30th April, 2008 Order delivered on 2nd May, 2008 P.C. 1. Appellant - the original plaintiff is challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 23rd April, 2008 in Notice of Motion No.1535 of 2008 in Suit No.1315 of 2005 whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to reject the application of the appellant - original plaintiff for ad- interim relief. 2. Brief facts, in a nutshell, are as under:- 3. Appellant is the original plaintiff and the respondents are the original defendants. For the sake of convenience the parties shall be referred to as the original plaintiff and defendants. There was a group of Companies known as 3 Reliance Group of Companies which was split into two Divisions; one group was headed by Anil Dhirubhai Ambani and the other group was headed by Mukesh Dhirubhai Ambani. Plaintiff - Company went to the share of Anil Dhirubhai Ambani. All the Companies were initially managed by the main Company i.e. Defendant No.3 herein viz. Reliance Industries Limited. The demerger of the plaintiff took place on 18/06/2005. Thereafter, dispute arose between the two groups of Companies in respect of a plot of land admeasuring 2701 square metres which was used as a hangar at the Santacruz Airport. 4. The plaintiff, initially, had filed a Writ Petition in this Court vide Writ Petition No.3043 of 2006 seeking a direction from this Court, directing defendant No.1 not to enter into a lease agreement with respondent No.3. Initially the Writ Petition came up before Division Bench of this Court vide Writ Petition (Lodging) No.2553 of 2006 and, on the said date, the Division Bench of this Court directed respondent Nos. 1 to 3 who are defendants herein, not to enter into formal lease deed with respondent No.4 i.e. defendant No.4 4 herein. Thereafter, by order dated 22nd February, 2007 the Division Bench dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that it was not maintainable since it involved disputed questions of fact. Liberty was granted to the Petitioners to adopt alternative remedy and the interim relief which was granted earlier was continued for a period of eight weeks. This order was challenged in the Apex Court. The Apex Court confirmed the order passed by the High Court and directed the Petitioners to file a civil suit. The interim order, however, was continued for a period of two weeks. Thereafter, the present plaintiff has filed this suit. 5. The principal contention of the plaintiff in the suit is that the hangar space at CSI Airport was allotted to the plaintiff and in support of the said averment, the plaintiff relied on the correspondence between the plaintiff & defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Defendant No.3, on the other hand, contended that the allotment was made in favour of Reliance Industries Limited and the possession was also granted in favour of defendant No.3. It was the contention of defendant No.3 that the plaintiff, therefore, was not entitled to get ad- 5 interim relief. 6. In the Notice of Motion which was taken out by the plaintiff, the following reliefs were claimed:- "(a) that pending the hearing and final disposal of this Suit, this Hon'ble Court do restrain the Defendants 1, 2 and 4 jointly and/or severally by themselves or through their agents, employees, subsidiaries or servants from entering into a formal lease agreement with the 3rd Defendant in respect of 2701 square meters of land at Santacruz Airport, Santacruz East, Mumbai; (b) that pending the hearing and final disposal of this Suit, this Hon'ble Court do restrain the Defendants jointly and/or severally by themselves, or through their agents, employees, subsidiaries or servants from taking any steps in furtherance of the letter dated 20th July, 2006 (Exhibit CC to the Plaint); (c) that pending the hearing and final 6 disposal of this suit, this Hon'ble Court do permit the Plaintiff to use the hangar and other facilities for which the 2701 square meters of land at the Santacruz Airport, Santacruz East, Mumbai allotted to the Plaintiff; (d) that pending the hearing and final disposal of this suit, this Hon'ble Court do order and direct the 1st and 4th Defendants jointly and/or severally to raise invoices towards lease rent on the Plaintiff and accept payment thereof from the Plaintiff; (e) for ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d)" The learned Single Judge, after hearing the Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendants, was pleased to reject the prayer for ad-interim relief. 7. Mr. Rohatgi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, submitted that the learned Single Judge had not taken into consideration all the documents on 7 which reliance was placed by the plaintiff and on the basis of the documents on which reliance was placed by the defendants, ad-interim relief was refused. He submitted that the ad-interim relief had continued to operate against the defendants for more than one and half year since, initially, ad-interim order was granted by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition and this order has continued to be in operation till today. He submitted that after the application for ad-interim relief was decided by the learned Single Judge on 23rd April, 2008 he had orally directed both parties to maintain status quo till 30th April, 2008. He invited our attention to the letter dated 20th May, 2004 issued by the Executive Director which was addressed to the Regional Executive Director in which there was a reference of allotment of land to the plaintiff and a request had been made to the Regional Executive Director to issue NOC in the name of the plaintiff. He also invited our attention to the letter dated 12th January, 2006 in which also a reference was made in respect of allotment of land to M/s Reliance Transport & Travels Pvt. Ltd., the plaintiff herein. He also invited our attention to the letter dated 19th October, 2006 8 in which, again, the Executive Director had addressed a letter to Shri Z.A. Khan, Section Officer, Ministry of Civil Aviation in which there was a categorical reference that the plaintiff was allottee of the land in question. The learned Counsel submitted that the learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration the said correspondence. He submitted that if lease is executed in favour of defendant No.3 grave and irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiff. He submitted that, therefore, the said interim order which was in existence for past one and half year should continue pending the hearing and final disposal of the Notice of Motion. 8. Mr. Harish Salve, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of defendant No.3, on the other hand, submitted that the ad interim order should not be continued. He, however, fairly conceded that the defendant No.3 would not create any third party rights and would not claim any equity if the lease deed is executed in favour of defendant No.3 during the pendency of the Notice of Motion. He submitted that the defendant No.3 was in possession of the suit land. 9 He further submitted that if the ad-interim relief was granted in favour of the plaintiff, there was every possibility that the Airport Authority would cancel the allotment and grant the lease in favour of some third party, in which case grave and irreparable loss would be caused to both, the plaintiff and the defendant No.3. 9. The learned Counsel for defendant No.3 further submitted that if the correspondence was examined in its proper perspective, it could be seen that the allotment was made in favour of RIL and not in favour of the plaintiff. He invited our attention to the letter dated 18th January, 2000 which was addressed to the Airport Director, Airports Authority of India, in which it was specifically mentioned that the hangar was required since the Reliance had set up the world's largest grass-root refinery with 27 million tones refining capacity and a petrochemical complex at Jamnagar and, therefore, apart from undertaking flights to other domestic stations, there were regular 2 to 3 flights every day to Jamnagar. It was further stated in the letter that the Reliance Group, after petrochemical project was 10 commissioned, would add Rs 220000 crores to its turn over. He submitted that it was on the basis of this application, the letter of allotment had been made and it was obvious that the allotment was made in order to facilitate the transport facilities which were to be made available to the Reliance Industries Limited. 10. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties in support of the case. In our view, the learned Single Judge has given cogent reasons while declining to grant ad-interim relief. It is no doubt true that the plaintiff also has invited our attention to the various documents which also indicate that the plaintiff has an interest in respect of the plot of land. However, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge who has declined to grant ad-interim relief. The learned Single Judge has made a reference to the payment of security deposit and the licence fee by defendant No.3 and the possession being handed over to defendant No.3. He has further noted that the work of construction of hangar was undertaken by defendant No.3 11 and that, at that time, the plaintiff had not staked its claim to the suit land. It is no doubt true that the dispute between the parties started after 2005 onwards and that, therefore, earlier, the plaintiff and the defendant No.3 were under the flagship of one Company viz Reliance Industries Limited. However, at this stage, in our view, no case is made out by the plaintiff for interfering with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Though the ad-interim relief was granted by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition filed by the plaintiff herein, this ad-interim relief was withdrawn/vacated by this Court by its subsequent order. The SLP which was filed by the plaintiff herein against the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court was also dismissed and the order of the High Court passed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.3043 of 2006 was confirmed. Therefore, merely because an ad-interim order had continued in earlier litigation for some time, that alone cannot be a ground for continuing the said ad-interim relief during the pendency of the Notice of Motion. 11. However, we direct that the defendant No.3 shall not 12 create any third party rights in respect of the said plot or hand over possession of the plot to any third party. We further direct that the defendant No.3 shall not claim equities in respect of the said land if a lease is executed in favour of defendant No.3 during the pendency of the Notice of Motion. We also direct that if the lease is executed in favour of defendant No.3, the same shall be subject to result of the Notice of Motion. Liberty is granted to the parties to apply for a fixed date of hearing and if a request is made by the plaintiff for an early date of hearing, the same may be considered by the learned Single Judge. With these directions, appeal is disposed of. Under the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE V.M. KANADE, J.