M/s. Kunj Aluminium Private Limited Vs. M/s. Koninklijke Phillips Electronics NV
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 2915 of 2011
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 9553 of 2010]
[From the Judgement and Order dated 30.11.2009 of the High Court of Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal No. 613 of 2009]
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 9553 of 2010]
[From the Judgement and Order dated 30.11.2009 of the High Court of Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal No. 613 of 2009]
Petitioner: M/s. Kunj Aluminium Private Limited
Respondent: M/s. Koninklijke Phillips Electronics NV
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 2915 of 2011
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 9553 of 2010]
[From the Judgement and Order dated 30.11.2009 of the High Court of Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal No. 613 of 2009]
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 9553 of 2010]
[From the Judgement and Order dated 30.11.2009 of the High Court of Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal No. 613 of 2009]
Judges: Markandey Katju & Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 04, 2011
Appearances:
Appearances
Mr. Mrigang Dutta (for Mr. Rajiv Mehta), Advocate, for the Appellant(s).
Mr. Sudhir Chandra, Senior Advocate, Mr. N. Mahabir, Ms. Sheetal Vohra (for Mr. R. Chandrachud), Advocates, with him for the Respondent(s).
Mr. Mrigang Dutta (for Mr. Rajiv Mehta), Advocate, for the Appellant(s).
Mr. Sudhir Chandra, Senior Advocate, Mr. N. Mahabir, Ms. Sheetal Vohra (for Mr. R. Chandrachud), Advocates, with him for the Respondent(s).
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Delhi High Court Act, 1966
Section 10 – Letters Patent – Section 10 – Appeal from the judgement of Single Judge – No reasons given by Division Bench. Held that this is not the way to dispose off the appeal. Jagdish Sharan Varshney & Ors. [JT 2009 (4) SC 519] referred. Case remanded.
Delhi High Court Act, 1966
Section 10 – Letters Patent – Section 10 – Appeal from the judgement of Single Judge – No reasons given by Division Bench. Held that this is not the way to dispose off the appeal. Jagdish Sharan Varshney & Ors. [JT 2009 (4) SC 519] referred. Case remanded.
Held:
Without going into the merits of the controversy we find that the impugned judgment of the Division Bench dated 30.11.2009 gives no reasons. (Para 3)
This was not the way to dispose off an appeal. The impugned order is too cryptic. There should have been at least a brief discussion of facts and some reasons. It has been held by this Court that even an order of affirmance must give some reasons, even if brief vide Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Jagdish Sharan Varshney & Ors. [JT 2009 (4) SC 519]. Hence we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Division Bench for a fresh hearing in accordance with law, expeditiously. (Para 5)
Cases Reffered:
1. Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Jagdish Sharan Varshney & Ors. [JT 2009 (4) SC 519] (referred) (Para 5)
JUDGEMENT:
Markandey Katju, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 30.11.2009 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.613 of 2009. Without going into the merits of the controversy we find that the impugned judgment of the Division Bench dated 30.11.2009 gives no reasons.
4. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench only states:
‘5. We have heard Mr. Arvind Nigam, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant at length. We have also perused the documents on records as well as the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge.
6. We are of the considered view that the impugned order suffers from no legal infirmity which warrants interference by way of appeal.’
5. In our opinion this was not the way to dispose off an appeal. The impugned order is too cryptic. There should have been at least a brief discussion of facts and some reasons. It has been held by this Court that even an order of affirmance must give some reasons, even if brief vide Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Jagdish Sharan Varshney & Ors. [JT 2009 (4) SC 519]. Hence we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Division Bench for a fresh hearing in accordance with law, expeditiously.
6. Appeal is allowed. No costs.
*************
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 30.11.2009 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.613 of 2009. Without going into the merits of the controversy we find that the impugned judgment of the Division Bench dated 30.11.2009 gives no reasons.
4. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench only states:
‘5. We have heard Mr. Arvind Nigam, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant at length. We have also perused the documents on records as well as the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge.
6. We are of the considered view that the impugned order suffers from no legal infirmity which warrants interference by way of appeal.’
5. In our opinion this was not the way to dispose off an appeal. The impugned order is too cryptic. There should have been at least a brief discussion of facts and some reasons. It has been held by this Court that even an order of affirmance must give some reasons, even if brief vide Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Jagdish Sharan Varshney & Ors. [JT 2009 (4) SC 519]. Hence we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Division Bench for a fresh hearing in accordance with law, expeditiously.
6. Appeal is allowed. No costs.
*************
