PSUs Suing Each Other is Sad State of Affairs: Delhi High Court

NDTV Profit Desk

04 Sep 2014, 07:12 PM IST

The Delhi High Court today expressed concern over the "sad state of affairs" of public sector undertakings (PSUs) litigating against each other despite Prime Minister Narendra Modi's statement against continuance of such cases.

A bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw also imposed costs of Rs 20,000 on Cement Corporation of India Ltd (CCI) which had challenged a 2007 verdict of a single judge bench of the high court pertaining to a property dispute with Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India.

The high court in its 2007 judgement had upheld orders of the additional district judge as well as LIC's Estate Officer who had directed CCI to vacate the premises it was renting from the insurance company.

"We are constrained to observe that the present appeal demonstrates a sad state of affairs. The appellant (CCI) and respondent (LIC) both of which are PSUs have been litigating before this court and continue to litigate even after the Prime Minister of the nation recently issued a statement against continuance of such litigations.

"Not only so, the continuance of this appeal for a period of nearly seven years, with neither of the two parties having been able to reap benefits from the use of the property, is most unfortunate. Resultantly, while dismissing the appeal we impose cost of Rs 20,000 on the appellant, payable to the respondent," the bench said.

The court observed that according to the facts of the case, CCI's possession of the subject property was unauthorised and it had no right to continue in possession.

"No doubt, LIC appears to have agreed to accept the appellant as a tenant and to grant lease in favour of the appellant. The fact however remains that, the respondent LIC in spite of so agreeing, did not accept the appellant as a tenant and did not grant lease in favour of the appellant.

"The appellant (CCI) could have sued for specific performance to enforce such an agreement on the respondent LIC, but did not. The appellant thus remained an unauthorized occupant of the property," the court said.