SESA GOA LIMITED Vs. SHYAMSUNDER P NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. RULE is made returnable forthwith and is heard by consent. Impugned order discloses following finding in paragraph no. 12. Rather, at the outset of the oral arguments itself ld. Advocate Shri S. Joshi for the plaintiff has made a submission that there is no interference of the defendants from the date of filing of the suit. Thus there is no surviving cause of action as on date, even assuming there was any cause of action existing on the date of filing of the suit. Otherwise also it does not at all sound reasonable that only two defendants would manage to put the entire mining operations of the plaintiff at standstill, more specifically on taking in to consideration the vast area of mining lease of the plaintiff to the extent of 99,4000 hectares ( Quoted from page 163 of Order dated 22. 4. 2009 of paper book )In para nos. 13 and 14, the Trial Court has held that plaintiff does not have the aspects of prima facie case and aspect of irreparable loss, therefore said findings are recorded against the plaintiff. The discussion as to reasons on the point nos. 2 and 3 framed by Trial Court incorporated in paras 13 and 14 is cryptic and is not satisfactory. It is seen from the pleadings that the defendants have denied physical obstruction. This Court had queried to learned Advocate Mr. Bhobe to take instructions whether the defendants are ready to furnish an undertaking that they shall not obstruct the activities of plaintiff otherwise than in the course of law. The defendants have declined to give such undertaking. The apprehension in the mind of plaintiff therefore cannot be said to be baseless, and rather it is well founded. Considering the fact that after filing of the suit, the defendants did not create physical obstruction, there is no urgency of deciding the application for temporary injunction, however since the order does not contain proper reasoning on point nos. 2 and 3, it deserves to be set aside. Upon remand thereof the application for temporary injunction shall be heard and decided by the trial Court if need and occasion arises, and any fresh event of obstruction arises. Parties agree that the suit be proceeded, and be decided, by giving reasonable priority. Rule is made absolute in terms of foregoing para nos. (9) and (10 ). Parties shall bear own costs.