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