STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. GLAVKOSMOS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the case of O/VGC Vs. Collector of General Excise, 1992 Supp. (2) SCC432 the Apex Court had observed that it had "on more than one occasion pointed outthat Public Section Undertakings of Central Government and the Union of Indiashould not right their litigations in Court by spending money on fees of counsel, courtfees, procedural expenses and wasting public time. Courts are maintained forappropriate litigations. Court's time is not to be consumed by litigation which arecarried on either side at public expenses from the source. Notwithstanding theseobservations repeated on a number of occasions, the present cases appear to be aninstance of total callousness. The letter of 3/10/1988, indicated that the CabinetSecretary was looking into the matter. That has not obviously been followed up. As aninstance of wasting public time and energy this matter involves a principle to beexamined at the highest level". Five years later the Court explained this decision inSteel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors.,(1997) 5 SCC 51 1, holding that the previous directions for the constituting of a HighPowered Committee to resolve disputes between the Public Sector Undertakingsand the Government of India was still the need of the hour so that needless consumptionof time and waste of public funds could be avoided. The Apex Court had recorded thefollowing observations:

(2.) Keeping the facts of the case in perspective, the dispute now raised by theIndian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) by means of application under Order 1Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a typical case falling within the proscriptionof the ONGC ruling. The proceedings should have been halted at the threshold andthe application should have been heard only post obtainment of the Cabinet CommitteeClearance. Since this objection had not been voiced at that stage, and argumentswere heard in extensio, I think it appropriate to decide the application on merits.

(3.) On the first hearing itself i.e. on 20.11.1996, an injunction was issued restrainingthe movement of moneys of Defendant No. 1 into the coffers of its Bankers namely,Bank of Rajasthan Ltd, Defendant No.2. Shortly thereafter, on 9.12.1996, on a freshapplication being initiated, the Project Director, GSLV, ISRO, was also restrainedfrom transferring, debiting or otherwise parting with the funds of Defendant No. 1 lyingwith ISRO to the extent of the money claimed in the suit. After hearing the argumentsof the parties my learned brother, K. Ramamoorthy, J. directed the Plaintiff to receivefrom ISRO the sum of Rs.6,98,24,219.12 plus interest at the rate of 24 per cent perannum on Rs. 4.8 crores from the date of the plaint till 30.9.1998. Till this money wasreceived by the Plaintiff, the learned Judge continued the operation of the interimorders passed earlier. These orders were passed on 7.10.1998. The annals ofthelitigation do not end here since the controversy was carried to the portals of theDivision Bench. Significantly the applicant ISRO participated in the appellate hearings.On 16.12.1998 the following order was passed: