Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1521 (GUJ)

Biomix Network Limited v. Government of India

2017-09-04

RAJESH H.SHUKLA

body2017
ORDER : RAJESH H. SHUKLA, J. 1. As recorded earlier, learned Senior Counsel, Shri Pahwa was persuaded for some kind of working arrangement and time was extended. 2. Today, learned Senior Counsel, Shri Pahwa states that the matter may be disposed of with a clear understanding that period of ten months may be given to the petitioner to vacate the premises completely with removal of all material and machinery or equipments of the petitioner. However he has requested that the respondent may connect or reinstall the part of the machinery, which is used by the petitioner lying in the same premises. 3. However learned advocate, Shri Nanavati declined such request and has stated that for remaining period, the respondent may provided material i.e. “Whey” to the petitioner for their purpose during this period of ten months. 4. However the aforesaid proposal is not acceptable to learned Senior Counsel, Shri Pahwa and has insisted that the respondent should reconnect or reinstall the machinery belonging to the respondent for the purpose of petitioner during this period of ten months. 5. In background of the facts and coupled with the fact that as it is reflected from the papers, the petitioner has been granted permission to use the premises of the respondent for the purpose of project and, therefore, space was allocated for the same purpose, the request of learned Senior Counsel, Shri Pahwa cannot be accepted as it is not permissible. However fact that the petitioner has occupied as permissible user of the premises of the respondent, cannot be a ground for any such further extension of time and/or further direction that the respondent should reconnect or reinstall the machinery for the purpose of the petitioner. 6. It is required to be stated that merely because the petitioner is undertaking some project at the instance of the Government of India, which is used for some kind of public purpose or medical purpose, it cannot be a ground to allow the petitioner to bargain the terms and conditions even for the purpose of vacating the premises. It is required to be stated that the respondent no. 3 has agreed for a period of ten months to allow the petitioner to make alternate arrangement and find out suitable premises, meaning thereby, has not insisted for immediately vacation of the premises. It is required to be stated that the respondent no. 3 has agreed for a period of ten months to allow the petitioner to make alternate arrangement and find out suitable premises, meaning thereby, has not insisted for immediately vacation of the premises. But the petitioner has now claimed for further condition or fulfillment of the condition like reinstallation of the machinery belonging to the respondent. Not only that, the respondent has agreed to provide raw-material i.e. “Whey” which is used for the purpose of the petitioner, which is also not acceptable to learned Senior Counsel, Shri Pahwa for the petitioner. 7. It is in these circumstances, the petition cannot be entertained, particularly when the respondent no. 3 has fairly agreed to give time of ten months for the purpose of vacating the premises. The petitioner, who claims to have some project, has been permitted to use this premises and material could be removed within some time. However during pendency of hearing, it was suggested by Counsel for the petitioner that for semi-furnished or half process, goods may be allowed, which was also agreed and accepted by the respondent no. 3. Therefore it appears that the stand of the petitioner now to claim reinstallation of the machinery of the respondent no. 2 is trying to bargain hard, which is not permissible. In any case, as the respondent no. 3 has allowed the period of ten months for vacating the premises with good gesture, further indulgence could be granted and the petitioner shall remain there with goods and whatever material or equipments by that time. It goes without saying that the issue involved is no doubt refers to MOU but since the indulgence has been sought for from this Court under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India to find out the solution, now it may not be a ground for any further recourse by way of civil suit before the civil court by abuse of process of law to buy further time by changing forum, that cannot be permitted. Therefore the observations have been made that the petitioner shall vacate the premises after a period of ten months for removing all machinery and equipments. During this period of ten months, as recorded hereinabove, the respondent no. 3 may provide material i.e. “Whey” to the petitioner for their purpose upon the request being made by the petitioner. Therefore the observations have been made that the petitioner shall vacate the premises after a period of ten months for removing all machinery and equipments. During this period of ten months, as recorded hereinabove, the respondent no. 3 may provide material i.e. “Whey” to the petitioner for their purpose upon the request being made by the petitioner. However it will be open for the petitioner to have fresh look to such offer. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the present petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed. Notice is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.