Order 27 Rule 5 of the Code = The parties, however, on the next date of hearing expressed that it is not possible to come to any mutually acceptable terms due to myriad reasons. The parties, however, requested to refer the matter to any sole Arbitrator and left it to the Court to pass appropriate orders in that behalf including an order appointing an Arbitrator to decide the dispute(s) by an award. We, accordingly, request Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran­ former Judge of this Court to act as a sole Arbitrator for deciding the dispute(s), which have arisen between the parties to this appeal.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10203 OF 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P.(c) No. 22296 of 2018)
Hindustan Antibiotics Limited ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Maharashtra Housing And Area
Development Authority (MHADA)
& Ors ….Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1) Leave granted.
2) This appeal is filed against the final judgment
and order dated 06.07.2018 passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.
5122 of 2018 whereby the High Court dismissed the
Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein.
1
3) It is not necessary to set out the entire factual
details except few one, which are necessary for the
disposal of the appeal.
4) The appellant (Company) is a Government of
India Undertaking, which is controlled and function
under the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers,
having its registered office at Pimpri, Pune.
5) The appellant (Company) is engaged in the
manufacturing of life saving drugs at affordable
prices for the weaker sections of the Society. One
such drug manufactured by the appellant is
“Penicillin­G”.
6) The appellant (Company) entered into a joint
venture with one foreign Company­Royal Gist
Brocades, Netherlands for doing business of
manufacturing “Penicillin­G”. However, for myriad
reasons, it did not do well and the joint venture was
forced to close down their activities. The matter was
2
then referred to the Board for Industrial & Financial
Reconstruction (BIFR), which eventually prepared a
rehabilitation scheme under the Sick Industrial
Companies (Special Protection) Act, 1985 (SICA).
7) The appellant (Company) owns and in
possession of 263.57 acres of land at Pimpri, Pune
on which the factory and the residential colony are
built. Some land, however, remains lying idle.
8) The disputes have arisen between the
appellant (Company) and the State through its
Authority called ­ Maharashtra Housing and Area
Development Authority (MHADA) in relation to the
aforementioned land for its disposal etc.
9) The appellant (Company), therefore, in order to
resolve the disputes filed a writ petition in the High
Court of Bombay against the respondents (State
and MHADA) out of which this appeal arises seeking
appropriate mandamus or/and any other writ,
3
order, as the case may be, for disposal of the part of
the aforesaid land (plot Nos. 8 and 9).
10) The Division Bench of the High Court, by
impugned order, dismissed the writ petition filed by
the appellant (Company) on the ground that having
regard to the nature of the reliefs and averments on
which they are founded, the proper remedy of the
appellant would lie in filing the suit in the Civil
Court and not in filing the writ petition in the High
Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of
India. It is this order, which has given rise to filing
of this appeal by way of special leave by the
appellant (Company) in this Court.
11) On 20.09.2018, when this matter came up for
consideration, we felt that since all parties to the
appeal are either Public Undertaking or/and the
State and its agencies (MHADA), the matter should
be amicably settled by the parties concerned sitting
4
across the table rather than to drag the dispute(s) in
the Court. It was also felt that it is more so keeping
in view the observations of this Court made in Oil
And Natural Gas Commission And Another vs.
Collector Of Central Excise, 1995 Supp (4) SCC
541 and Oil & Natural Gas Corpn. Ltd. vs. City &
Industrial Development Corporation,
Maharashtra Ltd. And Others, 2007 (7) SCC 39
and the mandate of Order 27 Rule 5 of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as
“the Code”) which cast a duty on the Court to
ensure that such dispute should be resolved
amicably.
12) The parties were accordingly granted time to
report by the next date of hearing of the outcome of
their talk and the mode on which the disputes
arising between them can be settled. The matter
was accordingly adjourned for 28.09.2018.
5
13) The parties, however, on the next date of
hearing expressed that it is not possible to come to
any mutually acceptable terms due to myriad
reasons. The parties, however, requested to refer
the matter to any sole Arbitrator and left it to the
Court to pass appropriate orders in that behalf
including an order appointing an Arbitrator to
decide the dispute(s) by an award.
14) On hearing the learned counsel for the parties
and keeping in view the nature of the controversy,
the observations of this Court made in both the
ONGC cases cited supra, the status of the parties
and lastly, the mandate contained in Order 27 Rule
5 of the Code, we are of the considered opinion that
the various disputes which have arisen between the
parties including the one which is the subject
matter of the writ petition/appeal be referred to the
sole Arbitrator for his decision.
6
15) We, accordingly, request Mr. Justice R.V.
Raveendran­ former Judge of this Court to act as a
sole Arbitrator for deciding the dispute(s), which
have arisen between the parties to this appeal.
16) The parties are accordingly directed to obtain
the consent of Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran to act
as a sole Arbitrator on the terms suggested by him.
Let it be done within 2 weeks.
17) We leave it for the learned Arbitrator to decide
the terms of reference for its adjudication after
hearing the parties.
18) The appeal stands accordingly disposed of.

……………………………………..J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

……………………………………….J.
[S. ABDUL NAZEER]
New Delhi;
October 04, 2018
7