Uttarakhand High Court
Kamaldeep Industries (Micro Small & ... vs Dhanashree Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. And ... on 19 November, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2024:UHC:8556-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ
KUMAR TIWARI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VIVEK BHARTI SHARMA
19TH NOVEMBER, 2024
A.O. NO. 454 OF 2024
Kamaldeep Industries (Micro Small & Medium
Enterprises registered) .......Appellant
Versus
Dhanashree Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. and others.
...........Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. D.S. Patni, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal,
learned counsel.
Counsel for the respondents : Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder
for the State.
Mr. Sagar Kothari, learned counsel for
respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, learned
counsel for respondent No. 9.
JUDGMENT :
(per Mr. Manoj Kumar Tiwari, A.C.J.)
This is plaintiff's appeal under Section under
Section 13 (1-A) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015
challenging the order dated 26.10.2024, passed by
learned Additional District Judge (Commercial Court),
Dehradun in O.S. No. 174 of 2024 titled as M/s
Kamaldeep Industries vs. Dhanashree Agro Products
Pvt. Ltd. and others'. By the said order, the Temporary
Injunction Application of appellant was rejected.
2. Learned counsel for appellant submits that
appellant had made out a foolproof case for grant of
temporary injunction, and learned Commercial Court
erred in not allowing the Temporary Injunction
Application filed by appellant. He further submits that
2024:UHC:8556-DB
reasons assigned for disallowing the Temporary
Injunction Application are not sustainable in the eyes of
law and the impugned order, therefore, deserves to be
set aside and the Temporary Injunction Application filed
by appellant deserves to be allowed.
3. Learned Commercial Court has considered and
discussed all relevant aspects while holding that
plaintiff / appellant has not been able to make out a
prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction. It is
further held that the balance of convenience is also not
in favour of appellant. Learned Commercial Court
further held that it is not a case, where plaintiff /
appellant will suffer any irreparable injury, and held
that he can be compensated in terms of money.
4. It is not in dispute that defendant / respondent
No. 1 is occupier of a sugar factory, who had entered
into an agreement with appellant for supply of
molasses.
5. Sale and supply of molasses is regulated by Uttar
Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964, which is
applicable in State of Uttarakhand as well. Section 8 of
the said Act enables the State Government to regulate
sale or supply of molasses and such regulation can be
qua quantity of molasses or the person to whom it is to
2024:UHC:8556-DB
be sold or supplied. Section 8(1) of the aforesaid Act
has been reproduced in Paragraph No. 14 of the
impugned order.
6. Learned counsel for appellant, however, submits
that learned Commercial Court has reproduced
unamended Section 8 and after amendment made in
the year 2000, Section 8 of the aforesaid Act reads as
under:-
"8. Sale and supply of molasses.--(1) The
controller may, with the prior approval of the
State Government, by order require the occupier
of any sugar factory to 'sell or supply' in the
prescribed manner such quantity of molasses to
such person, as may be specified in the order, and
the occupier shall, notwithstanding any contract,
comply with the order."
7. Section 8 of the aforesaid Act, as it stands after
amendment, also indicates that molasses is a controlled
commodity, and the State Government exercises great
degree of control over sale and supply of molasses. A
perusal of Section 8(1) of the aforesaid Act further
indicates that notwithstanding contract by occupier of a
sugar factory regarding sale or supply with some other
person, the occupier would be bound to sell or supply
molasses to such person as the State Government
specifies by an order passed under sub-section (1) of
Section 8 of the aforesaid Act.
8. Learned Commercial Court was, therefore,
2024:UHC:8556-DB
justified in holding that as per the statutory provision,
without permission from the Controller, defendant No. 1
could not have sold or supplied molasses to appellant
and agreement, if any, entered into between plaintiff
and defendant No. 1, contrary to the provisions of Uttar
Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964, would be
void in view of the provisions contained in Section 29 of
Indian Contract Act. Therefore, learned Commercial
Court held that it will not grant any temporary
injunction, which runs counter to the spirit of the
aforesaid Act.
9. Plaintiff / appellant had sought a temporary
injunction restraining defendant Nos. 1 and 2, their
agents, assignees, etc. from removing the molasses
lying in the stock on the ground that defendant Nos. 1
and 2 had entered into an agreement to sell with
appellant.
10. Since learned Commercial Court has, prima facie,
held that the agreement entered into between
appellant and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 is not as per the
provisions of Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran
Adhiniyam, 1964, therefore any interference with the
discretionary order passed by learned Commercial
Court in this Appeal would not be proper.
2024:UHC:8556-DB
11. It is well settled that grant of temporary injunction
is discretionary and the Appellate Court will not
interfere with the exercise of discretion of the Court of
first instance, except where the discretion has been
shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or
capriciously or perversely or where the Court had
ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or
refusal of interlocutory injunctions. This aspect has
been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Skyline Education Institute (India) Pvt. Ltd. v.
S.L. Vaswani, (2010) 2 SCC 142, where the three-
Judge Bench considered a somewhat similar question in
the context of the refusal of the trial Court and the High
Court to pass an order of temporary injunction, referred
to the judgments in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P)
Ltd. 1990 Supp SCC 727, N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool
Corpn., (1996) 5 SCC 714 and observed:
"The ratio of the abovenoted judgments is that
once the court of first instance exercises its
discretion to grant or refuse to grant relief of
temporary injunction and the said exercise of
discretion is based upon objective consideration of
the material placed before the court and is
supported by cogent reasons, the appellate court
will be loath to interfere simply because on a de
novo consideration of the matter it is possible for
2024:UHC:8556-DB
the appellate court to form a different opinion on
the issues of prima facie case, balance of
convenience, irreparable injury and equity."
12. It is, thus, apparent that scope of interference by
learned Appellate Court with learned Trial Court's order
on temporary injunction application is limited. If two
views are possible, then the view taken by learned Trial
Court has to be maintained.
13. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharwal
Khejwaji Trust (Regd.) Faridkot v. Baldev Dass
reported in (2004) 8 SCC 488 has held that unless
and until a case of irreparable loss or damage is made
out by a party to the suit, the Court should not permit
a change of the said status quo, which may lead to loss
or damage being caused to the party who may
ultimately succeed and may further lead to multiplicity
of proceedings. It has further been held that in any
event, it is always open to the parties to claim damages
if the case of the party pleading a maintenance of
status quo is ultimately found to be baseless or, in an
appropriate case, the Court may itself award damages
for the loss suffered, if any, in this regard.
14. In view of the aforesaid legal position, this Court
2024:UHC:8556-DB
does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned
order. Thus, the Appeal fails and is dismissed. No order
as to costs.
_______________________
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, A.C.J.
_____________________
VIVEK BHARTI SHARMA, J.
Dt: 19th November, 2024
Rathour
PRAVINDR Digitally signed by PRAVINDRA S RATHOUR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
AS
2.5.4.20=23699ccc2fd40ad81b6fd13323779
d9e3aeb1097d17dbb53d481cabd25946eed,
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=1F65499E931DF71CDAF92A4
RATHOUR
0CC6179B8E010331BA695239171F906FD5C
45C4E8, cn=PRAVINDRA S RATHOUR
Date: 2024.11.25 12:56:31 +05'30'
