Jaikishan Jagwani & Ors. Vs. Britomatics Enterprises Private Ltd. & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14290 Of 1986.
Petitioner: Jaikishan Jagwani & Ors.
Respondent: Britomatics Enterprises Private Ltd. & Ors.
Apeal: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14290 Of 1986.
Judges: M.P. THAKKAR & B.C. RAY, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 23, 1987
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE :
Interlocutory order – Observations made during the proceedings – such observations are tentative and for limited purpose – Matter ultimately would be decided on merits with an open mind uninfluenced or uninhibited by any observation made in the course of these orders.
JUDGEMENT:
I
1. As this matter arises out of an interlocutory order, we are not inclined to interfere at this juncture. Counsel for the petitioners, under the circumstances withdraws the petition.
II
2. Counsel for the petitioners expresses an apprehension that the observations made by the City Civil Court and the High Court in the course of the orders in question might create prejudice. We think that the apprehension is not well-founded because by the very nature of things such observations are tentative observations made for the limited purposes of the interlocutory proceedings. When the question of deciding the matter on merits ultimately arises the matter would of course be disposed of with an open mind uninfluenced or uninhibited by any observations made in the course of these orders, on the basis of the evidence on record and in the light of submissions then made in accordance with law.
III
3. Both the learned counsel are ad idem that it would be advisable for their clients to refer such disputes as may be identified to the arbitration of a retired Judge of the High Court, if their clients heed to the advice. We suggest that if parties so agree the matter may be referred to the arbitration of Justice D.M. Rege, retired Judge of the High Court of Bombay if he consents to arbitrate on usual terms. In case the proposal to refer to the arbitration does not materialise, the appeal may be accorded priority and disposed of at an early date in accordance with law. We hope that it will be possible for the High Court to do so on this side of the vacation if needs be.
1. As this matter arises out of an interlocutory order, we are not inclined to interfere at this juncture. Counsel for the petitioners, under the circumstances withdraws the petition.
II
2. Counsel for the petitioners expresses an apprehension that the observations made by the City Civil Court and the High Court in the course of the orders in question might create prejudice. We think that the apprehension is not well-founded because by the very nature of things such observations are tentative observations made for the limited purposes of the interlocutory proceedings. When the question of deciding the matter on merits ultimately arises the matter would of course be disposed of with an open mind uninfluenced or uninhibited by any observations made in the course of these orders, on the basis of the evidence on record and in the light of submissions then made in accordance with law.
III
3. Both the learned counsel are ad idem that it would be advisable for their clients to refer such disputes as may be identified to the arbitration of a retired Judge of the High Court, if their clients heed to the advice. We suggest that if parties so agree the matter may be referred to the arbitration of Justice D.M. Rege, retired Judge of the High Court of Bombay if he consents to arbitrate on usual terms. In case the proposal to refer to the arbitration does not materialise, the appeal may be accorded priority and disposed of at an early date in accordance with law. We hope that it will be possible for the High Court to do so on this side of the vacation if needs be.
