[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Indore Development Authority vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd on 21 January, 2026
1 FA-2174-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
FA No. 2174 of 2025
(INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD )
Dated : 21-01-2026
Shri Aniket Naik with Shri Shivam Bhargav - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Avish Mittal with Shri Krishnakant Mittal- Advocate for the
respondent (Caveat).
Heard on admission.
Appeal is admitted for hearing.
2. As the respondent is represented, no notice after admission is required
to be issued.
3. Also heard on I.A.No.12720/2025 which is an application for stay on
the execution of the impugned judgment and decree.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment
and decree suffers from an inherent perversity in as much as the NIT which was
issued by the appellant has been treated as an instrument of reciprocal promises
which is completely perverse to the NIT issued by the appellant. He further
submits that in fact the judgment and decree has been passed on a subject matter
which was already agitated by the respondent by filing Writ Petition No.
2817/2019 in which the relief was sought against the order of cancellation of
reservation and forfeiture of amount which was dismissed and affirmed in Writ
Appeal No. 1699/2019. Learned counsel submits that even before the Hon'ble
Apex Court the orders passed by the High Court withstood scrutiny, however
liberty was granted to the appellant for taking recourse to the remedy available
under the law. He submits that even in view of the liberty granted by the Hon'ble
2 FA-2174-2025
Apex Court, already decided issues will still be struck by the principle of res
judicata and those issues which were not expressly raised, though available at the
time of filing of writ petition, are also struck by the principle of constructive res
judicata.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the NIT was issued
on 'As is where is basis'. He has taken this Court through various clauses of the
NIT and tried to demonstrate that it was already clarified in the NIT itself that the
concerned entity has to satisfy itself about the physical situation of the property
involved. As such the subsequent plea of unavailability of service road was not
tenable and was not available to the respondent. In view of the above facts,
learned counsel for the appellant by referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court rendered in the case of Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anr. vs. Amazon
Technologies Inc., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2153 submits that present is a case of
exceptional circumstances so as to stay the impugned money decree
unconditionally.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent, controverting the submissions of
learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the findings recorded by the learned
trial Court in para 94 and 98 have to be read in conjunction. He submits that
those findings of reciprocal promise is not without any basis. In support of his
submission, he refers to the statement of DW-1 who was an officer of the
appellant who has admitted in para 19 of his cross-examination that there was a
promise by the officers of the appellant that though service road is not available
but it will be made available before completion of the process. He thus submits
that based on this statement of the officer of the appellant, the findings in the
impugned judgment have been recorded.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3 FA-2174-2025
7. A perusal of the NIT would show that it was on 'As is where is basis'. It
was made clear in the NIT itself that interested persons have to satisfy themselves
by physically inspecting the subject property before submitting their bids.
8. Apart from this, it has also to be considered that the Coordinate Bench
of this Court in writ petition denied the relief to the respondent on a challenge
mounted against the cancellation of reservation and forfeiture of EMD. The order
of the Single Bench was affirmed by the Division Bench in writ appeal. It also
remained final even up to the Hon'ble Apex Court where the SLP was declined.
However, liberty was granted for taking recourse to the remedy available. In view
of the above facts, it is clear that the NIT prima facie did not contain any promise
regarding availability of service road. It also appears from the record that in the
trial Court, the orders passed in writ petition, writ appeal and by the Hon'ble Apex
Court were not placed on record. As such, in the considered opinion of this
Court, the appellant is able to make out a sufficient cause for granting stay against
the execution of the impugned judgment and decree particularly in view of the fact
that as per the learned counsel for the appellant, substantial loss has already been
suffered by it due to cancellation of process of tender and also considering his
submission that if the appellant is made to pay the decretal amount in entirety, the
developmental work which are being carried out by it (being a development
authority) will suffer.
9. As such, the execution of the impugned judgment and decree is stayed
subject to deposit of 30% of the decretal amount within a period of four weeks
from today. For the remaining amount, the appellant is directed to furnish an
undertaking before the Registry of this Court thereby stating that it will ensure due
performance of the impugned judgment and decree if ultimately it becomes
binding upon it.
4 FA-2174-2025
10. Learned counsel for the respondent informs the Court that they have
not filed any execution proceedings and has provided the account details of the
respondent i.e. A/C No. 31469683674, IFSC No. SBIN0005793 (State Bank of
India) in which the amount can be directly deposited by the appellant. As such,
the appellant is permitted to deposit the aforesaid amount in the account of the
respondent as mentioned hereinabove.
11. With the aforesaid direction, I.A.No 12720/2025 stands disposed of.
12. I.A.No. 12882/2025 is an application filed by the appellant under
Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC.
13. The same shall be considered at the time of final hearing of the
appeal. Meanwhile the respondent, if so wishes, can file reply to the aforesaid
I.A.
List this case in due course.
(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
vidya
