Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1179 (BOM)

Associated Building Co. Ltd. v. Greenpeace India

2008-08-20

V.M.KANADE

body2008
JUDGMENT:- Leave under Rule 147 of the High Court (Original side) Rules is granted to the plaintiffs to take out Notice of Motion in terms of draft Notice of Motion handed in. Plaintiffs to get the Notice of Motion numbered. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the plaintiffs and learned Counsel for the defendants. Mr. Mihir Desai, learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the defendants. 3. The plaintiff are companies incorporated under the Companies Act. Defendant no.1 is a Non-Government Organisation and defendant no.2 is the Executive Director of defendant no.1. It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff no.3 entered into a joint venture agreement with Larsen and Toubro Limited in 2004 and became the shareholder of Dhamra Port Company Limited (herein referred to as "DPCL"). DPCL has been awarded concession by the Government of Orissa to build, own, operate, share and transfer a port north of the mouth of the river Dharma on lease for a period of 34 years. Defendant no.l - a Non-Government Organisation is concerned about the environmental protection and has started a campaign and acts to change attitudes and behaviour to protect and conserve, the environment and to promote peace. It is the case of the defendants that as a result of the said project which is undertaken by the plaintiffs herein, it would affect the breeding of Olive Ridley Turtle which is declared as endangered species of Turtle. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants and its members are holding illegal demonstration and are preventing its employees from entering its registered office which is situated at Bombay. The plaintiffs have annexed certain photographs at Exhibit-D which disclose that certain persons have created a chain of people around the said building which has resulted in obstructing the employees of the said plaintiffs entering the said premises. 4. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the Annual General Meeting of the plaintiffs company is scheduled to be held on 28th August, 2008 at Birla Matushree Sabhagraha and there is a serious apprehension that the defendant and its members or followers are likely to disturb the said meeting or obstruct the shareholders of the plaintiff s company from attending the said meeting. The plaintiffs, therefore, have taken out this Notice of Motion seeking the following ad-interim reliefs:- "(a) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the Defendant Nos.1 their members, office bearers, agents and Defendant No.2 be restrained by an order and permanent injunction of this Hon'ble Court from: (i) staging any demonstration, holding any meeting, gathering any members at or around the entrance of Bombay House building within the radius of 50 meters of the said building, and/or preventing and/or obstructing the ingress and engress of the Plaintiffs, their officers, employees and visitors to the said building Bombay House situated at 24 Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai 400 001; (ii) staging any demonstration, holding any meeting, gathering any members at or around the entrance of the venue of the scheduled Annual General Meeting of Plaintiff No.3 at Birla Matushree Sabhagraha, situated at 19 Sir Vithaldas Thakersey Marg, New Marine Lines, Mumbai on 28th August, 2008 within a radius of 50 meters of the said building, and/or preventing and/or obstructing the ingress and engress of the Plaintiff, their officers, employees, shareholders and visitors thereto. (iii) staging any demonstration, holding any meeting, gathering any members at or around the entrance of the residences of any of the Directors of Plaintiff No.3 as set out in Exhibit "F" hereto and/or within a radius of 50 meters thereto preventing and/or obstructing the ingress and egress thereto. (b) For ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer (a) above; (c) For costs; and (d) For such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require. " 5. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs submits that though the defendants may have right to voice their grievance in a peaceful manner, they cannot obstruct the ingress and egress of shareholders of the company either in their registered office or in the Annual General Meeting which is scheduled to be held on 28th August, 2008. It is also submitted that the members of defendant no.1 are likely to assemble near the residence of the Directors of plaintiff no.3. He invited my attention to an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 16th June, 1997 in Notice of Motion No.1496 of 1997 in Suit No.1791 of 1997. 6. It is also submitted that the members of defendant no.1 are likely to assemble near the residence of the Directors of plaintiff no.3. He invited my attention to an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 16th June, 1997 in Notice of Motion No.1496 of 1997 in Suit No.1791 of 1997. 6. Learned Counsel for the defendants, on the other hand, submitted that the defendants have a right to voice their grievance in a peaceful manner and it is their fundamental right which is protected by Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India. He relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kameshwar Prasad and others Vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in 1966(13) SCC 194. He also relied on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Kamgar Sabha and others Vs. Hindustan Ciba-geigy Ltd. in Appeal From Order No.26 of 1994. He has also filed an undertaking of defendant no.1 in which he has stated that the defendants or their Members shall not stop or obstruct the ingress or egress of any shareholder, director, office bearer, employee or any visitor to any of the suit premises including the premises where Annual General Meeting is likely to be held and directors' residence and shall not carry out any demonstration which may obstruct entry and exist as reflected in Exhibit D to plaint. 7. I have heard both the learned Counsel at length. In the present case, the plaintiffs have an apprehension that the defendants are likely to obstruct the shareholders from attending the meeting and undertaking has been filed by the defendant no.1 that they shall not cause any obstruction to any of the shareholders from attending the meeting. Photographs which are annexed to the plaint at Exhibit-D clearly shows that a human chain was created by defendant no.1 and its members, the effect was clearly to prevent the ingress and egress to the employees of the plaintiffs' company from entering into the registered office of their building. Though a categorical statement has been made by the defendants that such type of demonstrations will not be held by the members of the defendant no.1 Organisation, in my view, in the interest of justice, the conflicting interest of the plaintiffs and defendant no.! will have to be reconciled. 8. Though a categorical statement has been made by the defendants that such type of demonstrations will not be held by the members of the defendant no.1 Organisation, in my view, in the interest of justice, the conflicting interest of the plaintiffs and defendant no.! will have to be reconciled. 8. There cannot be any manner of doubt that any citizen or association of persons has a right to voice its grievance or to express its opinion in a manner concerning the public at large and for that purpose can hold peaceful demonstration as prescribed by law and as per the conditions imposed by the police or any other authority empowered to do so. However, at the same time while holding such a demonstration, the members of the public or members of the association cannot violate the right of any individual to carryon the business in a peaceful manner. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case-; I am of the view, therefore, that though an undertaking has been given by defendant no.1 that they will not prevent the shareholders of the plaintiff company from attending the Annual General Meeting, it would be appropriate if further restrictions are also imposed. 9. The defendant no.1, therefore, is directed:- (1) that it is permitted to hold the peaceful demonstration near the Income-Tax building and at the other end of the lane towards Liberty Cinema and Metro Theatre. The number of such demonstrators shall not be more than 100. (2) the demonstrators shall not shout any slogans since the area is a silent zone as there is a hospital adjoining to the Birla Matushree Sabhagraha i.e. the Bombay Hospital. The members of defendant no. 1 employee may distribute the pamphlet if they so desire. (3) defendant no.1 and its members or followers shall not obstruct the flow of traffic in the said area or shall not prevent any vehicle from entering the said lane. (4) defendant no. 1 and its members shall not assemble near the residence of the Directors of the plaintiff no.3 company and near the Bombay House. (5) defendant no. 1 and its members shall not take law into their own hands or damage any public property. Ad-interim relief is granted in the above terms. 10. Motion is made returnable after eight weeks. 11. Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this Order. Ordered accordingly.