(1.) The appellant, who is the petitioner in W.P.No.56686/2017, filed such writ petition seeking, inter alia, quashing of the 'Letter/ Order dated 13.10.2015' (which is issued by the first respondent withdrawing certain terms in dispute between the appellant and the third respondent and the 'Letter/ Order dated 03.11.2015' (which is issued by the second respondent requiring the appellant and the third respondent to file compliance report in terms of the first respondent's said 'Letter/ Order dated 13.10.2015'). The Writ Court, by the impugned order dated 03.04.2017, while disposing of the writ petition, has left open to the petitioner to avail of the other remedies permissible in accordance with law. Hence this appeal.
(2.) Brief statements of the respective cases of the appellant and the respondents are as follows:
(3.) The appellant's case: The appellant asserts that the appellant and the third respondent entered into the lease deed dated 18.02.2008, and in terms of thereof, the appellant took on lease the third respondent's sugar factory. The appellant also asserts, referring to clause 46 of the lease deed, that they agreed to share the amounts payable to the third respondent's employees under Voluntarily Retirement Scheme (VRS) Settlement in the ratio of 30:70 with the appellant paying 30% and the third respondent paying 70% of such cost of VRS; and to appellant advancing to the third respondent its share of 70% of the cost of VRS settlement on the condition that the appellant shall deduct 50% of the lease rent towards such advance from the 5th year of the lease and that appellant shall not be entitled to any interest on the amount so advanced.