Nayara Energy Limited Earlier … vs The State Of Gujarat on 18 December, 2020


Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

Supreme Court of India

Nayara Energy Limited Earlier … vs The State Of Gujarat on 18 December, 2020

Author: M.R. Shah

Bench: Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, M.R. Shah

                                                       NON­REPORTABLE


                                   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                    CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4102­4103 OF 2020
                              (Arising from S.L.P.(Civil) Nos.14215­14216/2020)


         Nayara Energy Limited                                   …Appellant

                                          Versus

         The State of Gujarat and others                         …Respondents




                                              JUDGMENT

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order

dated 18.08.2020 passed by the High Court of Gujarat in Civil

Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2020 in First Appeal No. 1543 of

2020 and the subsequent order dated 30.09.2020 passed in

Misc. Civil Application (for modification of order) No. 2 of 2020 in
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
MEENAKSHI KOHLI

First Appeal No. 1543 of 2020, permitting the original claimants
Date: 2020.12.18
14:44:01 IST
Reason:

to withdraw 50% of the 80% of the amount, as awarded by the

1
learned Reference Court, without furnishing any security, the

appellant herein – the appellant/applicant before the High Court

has preferred the present appeals.

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and

award passed by the learned Reference Court enhancing the

amount of compensation for the land acquired, the appellant

herein has preferred the first appeal before the High Court being

First Appeal No. 1543 of 2020. In the said appeal, the appellant

filed Civil Application (for Stay) no. 1 of 2020 praying to stay the

judgment and order passed by the learned Reference Court. By

the impugned order dated 18.08.2020, the High Court has stayed

the execution, implementation and operation of the judgment and

award passed by the learned Reference Court, on condition that

the appellant shall deposit 80% of the awarded amount along

with proportionate cost and interest before the learned Reference

Court. The High Court has further passed an order that upon

deposit of the aforesaid amount, the learned Reference Court to

deposit 50% out of the said deposited amount (80% of the

amount awarded by the learned Reference Court), together with

proportionate cost and interest, in the cumulative fixed deposit,

in any nationalised bank, initially for a period of five years, in the

2
names of the original claimants, which shall be continued to be

renewed from time to time, till the final disposal of the main first

appeal. The High Court has further passed an order that balance

50% of the 80% of the awarded amount together with

proportionate cost and interest is permitted to be withdrawn by

the original claimants. The High Court has further passed an

order that original claimants shall be entitled to withdraw 50% of

the accrued principal interest on the fixed deposit. That

thereafter the appellant herein filed an application to modify the

aforesaid order pointing out that in case of relied upon judgment,

relied upon by the learned Reference Court, an appal has been

preferred and there is an unconditional stay granted by the High

Court – Coordinate Bench, and therefore, it was prayed to modify

the aforesaid interim order. By order dated 30.09.2020, the

learned Single Judge of the High Court has dismissed the said

application. Hence, the present appeals have been preferred by

the original applicant – acquiring body.

4. Shri P.S. Narasimha, learned Senior Advocate appearing on

behalf of the appellant has stated at the Bar that instead of 80%

of the awarded amount, as directed by the High Court by the first

impugned interim order, the appellant is ready and willing to

3
deposit the entire 100% of the enhanced awarded amount,

together with interest and cost granted by the Reference Court,

as a condition for stay of the award. It is submitted that,

however, the claimants may not be permitted to withdraw the

amount without furnishing any security or solvency certificate to

the satisfaction of the learned Reference Court or the Executing

Court.

4.1 It is further submitted that if the claimants are permitted to

withdraw the amount of compensation, as awarded by the

learned Reference Court, without furnishing any security, in that

case and ultimately if the appellant succeeds before the High

Court, it will be very difficult for the appellant to recover any

amount from the original claimants. It is submitted that

therefore while permitting withdrawal, the High Court ought to

have put some conditions for giving security for withdrawal, so

that there may not be any difficulty for realising back the

amount, in the event the first appeal of the appellant is allowed

by the High Court.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original

claimants has submitted that the acquisition is of the year 1996

and after a period of approximately 17 years, the learned

4
Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation. It is

submitted that the original claimants are agriculturists and their

lands have been acquired and that they are not in a position to

furnish any security. It is submitted that the High Court has not

committed any error in passing the impugned interim order and

permitting the original claimants to withdraw 50% of the 80% of

the enhanced amount of compensation awarded by the Reference

Court.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties at

length and the fact that the lands of the original claimants have

been acquired in the year 1996 and the learned Reference Court

has enhanced the amount of compensation after a period of

approximately 17 years (by now 20 years), and the original

claimants are not in a position to furnish any security, while

permitting the original claimants to withdraw the amount of

enhanced compensation awarded by the learned Reference

Court, to strike the balance and to consider the interest of both

the parties and recording the statement of Shri P.S. Narasimha,

learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that

the appellant is ready and willing to deposit the entire enhanced

amount of compensation awarded by the learned Reference

5
Court, together with interest and cost, we are of the opinion that

if the original claimants are permitted to withdraw 25% of the

enhanced amount of compensation, as awarded by the learned

Reference Court, together with proportionate interest and cost,

without furnishing any security and the balance 75% of the

enhanced amount of compensation, together with proportionate

cost and interest, as awarded by the learned Reference Court is

permitted to be invested in a fixed deposit in any nationalised

bank with cumulative interest, it will meet the end of justice and

take care of the interest of both the parties.

7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the

impugned order passed by the High Court dated 18.08.2020

passed in Civil Application (for stay) No. 1 of 2020 in First Appeal

No. 1543/2020 is modified as under:

i) the execution, operation and implementation of the

judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court,

impugned before the High Court in First Appeal No. 1543 of

2020, is stayed on condition that the appellant shall deposit

entire 100% of the awarded amount along with interest and cost

before the learned Reference Court, within a period of four weeks

from today;

6

ii) upon deposit of the aforesaid amount, the learned Reference

Court is directed to deposit 75% of the said deposited amount

together with proportionate cost and interest, in the cumulative

fixed deposit, in any nationalised bank, initially for a period of

five years, in the name of the Court, which shall be continued to

be renewed from time to time, till the final disposal of the main

first appeal. The fixed deposit receipt may be kept in the custody

of the learned Reference Court;

iii) the balance 25% of the deposited amount, together with

proportionate cost and interest is permitted to be withdrawn by

the original claimants without furnishing any security, which

shall be paid by the learned Reference Court, by way of account

payee cheque, on proper identification and verification and the

original claimants shall be informed by the learned Reference

Court itself the amount which they are to be paid. The

withdrawal of the aforesaid amount shall be subject to the

ultimate outcome of the main first appeal.

7

8. The present appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent. No

costs.

……………………………………….J.

[ASHOK BHUSHAN]

……………………………………….J.

                              [R. SUBHASH REDDY]


NEW DELHI;                    ………………………………………J.
DECEMBER 18, 2020.            [M.R. SHAH]




                                                               8



Source link