Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited And Another v. State Of Maharashtra And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

The order concerns a matter in which the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) filed a report regarding property owned and possessed by Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Pursuant to that report, an amount of Rs. 14,71,98,590 was deposited as Net Present Value (NPV), and the State’s counsel confirmed the deposit.

The court had earlier passed an interim status quo order restraining the petitioners from further construction on the lands and from creating third-party rights. The present order addresses the continuation (or vacating) of that interim protection and also records procedural directions regarding listing and an interlocutory application (IA No. 10).

Legal Issues Presented

The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Submission

• The petitioner’s counsel stated that the petitioner would not claim any refund of the amount deposited as NPV.

Applicant's Submission (IA No. 10)

• The applicant in IA No. 10 sought leave to withdraw the interlocutory application.

State's Confirmation

• The State’s counsel confirmed that Rs. 14,71,98,590 had been deposited as NPV.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court recorded that the NPV deposit (Rs. 14,71,98,590), made pursuant to the CEC report concerning the relevant property, stood confirmed by the State’s counsel. In light of this, the court vacated its earlier interim order of status quo that restrained construction and prohibited creation of third-party rights.

While permitting the petitioners to proceed with and complete construction, the court expressly made this permission conditional: it is subject to any order that may be passed by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) and is also subject to the final outcome of the matter.

Procedurally, the court directed the matter to be listed after six weeks. It also allowed withdrawal of IA No. 10 and disposed it of as withdrawn, granting liberty to the applicant to file another IA in the SLP.

Holding and Implications

INTERIM STATUS QUO ORDER VACATED: The court vacated its interim order restraining further construction and vacated the direction not to create third-party rights; the petitioners were permitted to proceed with and complete construction.

IA NO. 10 DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN: Withdrawal was permitted, and IA No. 10 was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file another IA in the SLP.

The direct effect is that interim restraints on construction and third-party rights no longer operate, though the permission is expressly conditional on any MoEF order and on the final outcome of the matter. The order also records the petitioner’s statement that no refund of the NPV deposit will be claimed. No broader legal implications or new precedent are indicated in the text.