# Thapar and Brothers (C.S.) Ltd v. Nandini Roofing System Pvt. Ltd. and

- **Citation:** (2010) 2 ILRA 725
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-07-07
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7899 of 2010
- **Bench:** Shyam Shankar Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/thapar-and-brothers-c-s-ltd-v-nandini-roofing-system-pvt-ltd-and-41685
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A.G.A.

Practice of Procedure- Interim Ordergranted for limited period-case listed for
hearing on several dates but no further
extension-held-stay would not continue
automatically
unless
extended
by
specific terms.

Held: Para 13

In that case an injunction order was
passed
for
a
limited
period
and
thereafter, it could not be extended.
Since on the date fixed the Presiding
Officer was on leave and later on, the
case having been transferred to another
court, the order was neither extended
nor vacated. Despite the fact that even
the
application
for
extension
was
pending. The High Court took the view
that once no order of extension of the
interim order was passed and the interim
order was operating till particular date it
would not continue automatically and
would cease on the date on which it was
granted.
Case Law discussed:
2009 (3) AWC 3115, 2007(3) SCC-470, 2008
(8) SCC-348.
726 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

## Text

2 All] Karam Chand Thapar Brother (C.S.) Limited V Nandini Roofing System Pvt. Limited
725

8. Institutions are allowed to be
opened by the private persons for
facilitating education to all those who are
interested in getting higher studies. Once
the State Government grants no objection
for establishing an institution, particularly
where courses like B.A., B.Sc. and
B.Com, are taught and due affiliation is
granted by the University, may be
temporary or permanent, there would
hardly be any ground for closure of such
an institution by not granting permanent
affiliation or keeping the matter pending,
unless, of course, there is some very
exceptional and pertinent reason for
refusal of affiliation.

9. The persons, who invest huge
amount in establishing a college, are
always in a state of suspense as to
whether their institutions would be
allowed to take admissions, after the
period of temporary affiliation is expired,
or not.

10. Such a situation cannot be
appreciated.

11. We, under the circumstances,
dispose of the writ petition finally with
the direction that the State Government
shall forthwith take a decision regarding
approval for grant of affiliation, say
within a maximum period of two weeks
from the date of receipt of a certified copy
of this order, in the light of the
observations made above, and the said
decision shall be communicated to the
petitioner forthwith.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.07.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHYAM SHANKAR TIWARI, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7899 of 2010

Karam Chand Thapar Brother (C.S.)
Limited

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Nandini Roofing System Private Limited
and others

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ajay Bhanot

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Practice of Procedure- Interim Ordergranted for limited period-case listed for
hearing on several dates but no further
extension-held-stay would not continue
automatically
unless
extended
by
specific terms.

Held: Para 13

In that case an injunction order was
passed
for
a
limited
period
and
thereafter, it could not be extended.
Since on the date fixed the Presiding
Officer was on leave and later on, the
case having been transferred to another
court, the order was neither extended
nor vacated. Despite the fact that even
the
application
for
extension
was
pending. The High Court took the view
that once no order of extension of the
interim order was passed and the interim
order was operating till particular date it
would not continue automatically and
would cease on the date on which it was
granted.
Case Law discussed:
2009 (3) AWC 3115, 2007(3) SCC-470, 2008
(8) SCC-348.
726 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
(Delivered by Hon'ble Shyam Shankar
Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned AGA and perused
the record.

2. This writ petition has been filed by
the petitioner under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for quashing the orders
dated 9.11.2009, 7/8.2.2010 and 30.4.2010
(filed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition )
passed by the learned trial court in Case
Crime No.1780 of 2006 (Karam Chand
Thapar and Brothers (C.S.) Ltd. Vs.
Nandini Roofing System Pvt. Ltd. and
others and also to issue a mandamus
commanding the learned trial court to
proceed with the trial in the aforesaid Case
immediately without any further delay.

3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to
the present petition are that the petitioner
required a supplier having the capacity and
expertise of the manufacturing/fabrication
of customized GCI sheets, which were
required by the petitioner for construction
work at Tehri Dam. The respondents
misrepresented to the petitioner that they
had
the
required
expertise
of
manufacturing/fabrication of customized
GCI sheets. They were fully aware of the
fact that their representation was false only
in order to induce the petitioner to part with
their property. They falsely represented to
have that capacity. The petitioner parted
with a huge money amounting to Rs. 24
lacs and further an amount of Rs.18 lacs
towards raw materials. The respondents
failed to deliver the GCI sheets to the
petitioner
as
per
requirement.
The
respondents retained the entire amount of
money with them. The petitioner demanded
the money back from them, but they not
only refused to return that money, but also
threatened to sell the entire raw materials
and the machinery in the open market.

4. The petitioner instituted criminal
proceedings against the respondents before
the court of learned CJM, Ghaziabad. A
Criminal Case was registered on Case
Crime No.7780 of 2006 against the
respondents.Subsequently,
the
learned
Special CJM (CBI), Ghaziabad by an order
dated 31.7.2006 directed the respondents to
appear before the court. The respondents
did not appear. Accordingly, process of
bailable warrant was issued against them by
the trial court.

5. The respondents challenged the
above proceedings pending before the court
below under section 482 Cr.P.C. before this
Court, which was registered as Criminal
Misc. Application No.12371 of 2006
(Nandini Roofing System Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI) on
17.10.2006. An interim stay order was
granted by this Court on 17.10.2006 in the
aforesaid criminal Misc.Application in
favour of the applicants, who were
respondents before the court below. This
interim stay order was extended till the next
date of listing by an order dated 13.3.2008.
Thereafter, Criminal Misc. Application
No.12371 of 2006 was listed for hearing on
several dates, but the interim stay order was
not extended.

6. Since, further proceedings before
the trial court came to stand still on account
of the interim stay order dated 17.10.2006,
the
petitioner
accordingly,
filed
an
application before the trial court in Case
Crime No.1780 of 2006 with a prayer to
proceed with that case further , as there was
no stay order in existence in respect of the
proceedings pending before the court
below. The learned trial court declined to
2 All] Karam Chand Thapar Brother (C.S.) Limited V Nandini Roofing System Pvt. Limited
727
proceed further with the trial pending before
it, hence the present petition has been filed.

7. It is submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that since there is
no stay order in existence, the learned trial
court has wrongly declined to proceed
further with that case. There is no
justification for not proceeding with the
case before trial court.

8. A very short question of law is
involved in this case as to whether an
interim stay order granted by this Court
earlier on a particular date is still in
existence justifying the trial court not to
proceed with the case pending before it,
though that stay order has not been
specifically extended on future dates.

9. A perusal of the record reveals that
after 20.3.2008 no extension of interim stay
order has been granted by this Court. It is
also apparent from the record that in the
beginning proceedings pending before the
court below were stayed by order dated
17.10.2006 and lastly it was extended on
13.3.2008. Subsequently, on future dates it
was not extended. A perusal of the
ordersheet of the learned court below filed
on record shows that the proceedings before
the court are being adjourned with the
remark that the proceedings are stayed by
this Court. Even after the petitioner moved
an application before the court below
specifically stating that there is no stay
order, the trial court did not take any notice
of it rather continued to mention in the
ordersheet that further proceedings are
stayed by this Court. in this regard order
dated 9.11.2009, 7/8.2.2010 and 30.4.2010
may be mentioned. It is apparent from the
record that the interim stay order granted
earlier has not been extended after some
dates, but the proceedings before the court
below are still being adjourned on the
ground that the proceedings are stayed by
this Court.

10. It is further argued by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that once the
interim stay order granted is discontinued
on record, though, there is no specific
mention that the stay order is not extended it
has got the same force and it should be
treated that there is no interim stay order
staying further proceedings pending before
the court below. This matter has been
considered at length by a Division Bench of
this Court in the case of State of U.P. and
others Vs. Committee of Management,
DAV Inter College, Mahoba, reported in
2009 (3) AWC 3115 in which it has been
observed as follows :

"It cannot be said that an interim order
passed for a limited period would continue
automatically, if for the one or the other
reason the case could not be taken up by the
court. If the court has passed an interim
order for a limited period unless that order
is extended, it would not continue
automatically."

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Ashok Kumar Vs. State of
Haryana and another, 2007(3) SCC-470
has held as follows :

"There
is
no
warrant
for
the
proposition, as was stated by the High Court
that unless an order of stay passed once
even for the limited period is vacated by an
express order or otherwise ; the same would
continue to operate. We, therefore, are of
the opinion that the judgment of the High
Court cannot sustain, which is set aside
accordingly."
728 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

12. Similar view has been taken by the
Apex Court in the case of Arjan Singh Vs.
Punit Ahluwalia, 2008 (8) SCC-348. In
that case it was held as follows :

"We agree with the High Court on this
issue. if the order of injunction was
operative up to a particular date, technically
the order of injunction shall not remain
operative thereafter."

13. In that case an injunction order
was passed for a limited period and
thereafter, it could not be extended.Since on
the date fixed the Presiding Officer was on
leave and later on, the case having been
transferred to another court, the order was
neither extended nor vacated. Despite the
fact that even the application for extension
was pending. The High Court took the view
that once no order of extension of the
interim order was passed and the interim
order was operating till particular date it
would not continue automatically and
would cease on the date on which it was
granted.

14. In the present case it appears that
lastly, the interim order was granted on
13.3.2008 by this Court.Thereafter, the case
had been listed for hearing on 20.3.2008,
25.8.2008, 1.9.2008, 17.10.2008, 6.11.2008,
17.11.2008, 17.2.2009 and on 7.4.2009 and
so on but the interim order was never
extended on those dates.

15. In view of the foregoing
discussions and the facts and circumstances
of the case, the impugned order passed by
the learned trial court on 9.11.2009,
7/8.2.2010 and on 30.4.2010 cannot be
justified and accordingly, the order passed
by the learned court below is hereby set
aside. There should be no doubt in the mind
of the court below that interim stay order
once granted by this Court for a limited
period will continue to be effective even in
future though not specifically extended on
future dates. The case is remanded back to
the trial court to pass a fresh order in the
light of the law laid down by the Apex
Court in the aforementioned case and to
proceed further with the case.

16. With the aforesaid observations,
the petition is finally disposed of.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.07.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SABHAJEET YADAV, J.
THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J.

Criminal Writ Petition No. 9489 of 2010

Smt. Nagina Devi and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.N. Pandey
Sri V.K. Sharma
Sri Rahul Sripat
Sri V.R. Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Nagendra Kumar Singh
A.G.A.

Constitution of India Art-226-Power of
writ court interference with mode of
investigation-offence under section 147,
148, 452, 324, 325, 504, 506 IPC-FIR
lodged as counter blast-as the Police
personal already facing investigation for
offence under section 147, 376, 354, 504
and 506 IPC-petitioner No. 2 and 3 minor
girl who were brought in Police Station,
S O. and other constables raped her
along with village Pradhan-Court came
of definite opinion about commission of