I)(1972) 3 Scc 234, In Case Of Sheo Nath Singh v. Appellate Assistant Commissioner Of Incometax, Calcutta,Tax, Calcutta

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 730 of 2005In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9710 of 2004 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASADHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ========================================================= 1[Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed ]to see the judgment ?to see the judgment ? 2To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3[Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy ]of the judgment ?of the judgment ? Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the 4constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5[Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ]?? ========================================================= BIRLA VXL LTD - Appellant VersusHON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K RAMAMOO RTHY (RETD) & 2 - Respondents ========================================================= Appearance :MR KS NANAVATI SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH ABHISHEK MEHTA WITH MR. ANSHU BHANOT FOR M/S TRIVEDI & GUPTAfor Appellant: 1,None for Respondents : 1, 3,MR SB VAKIL SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH WITH MR ZUBIN F BHARDA for Respondent : 2, ========================================================= CORAM :HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant urges that this Letters Patent Appeal may be disposed of as having not been pressed and liberty be reserved to the appellant to urge factual as well as legal submissions before the appropriate forum permissible under law. this Letters Patent Appeal may be disposed of as having not been pressed and liberty be reserved to the appellant to urge factual as well as legal submissions before the appropriate forum permissible under law. 3. To this submission, learned counsel for the respondent raised objection. His objections are interalia in the following terms :respondent raised objection. His objections are interalia in the following terms : (i) That there is no occasion for passing the observations as prayed for.observations as prayed for. (ii) There is no jurisdiction with the High Court which invest it with plenary jurisdiction or equity jurisdiction or advisory jurisdiction or inherent jurisdiction when the petition is held not maintainable.Court which invest it with plenary jurisdiction or equity jurisdiction or advisory jurisdiction or inherent jurisdiction when the petition is held not maintainable. (iii) If there is no petition pending before the High Court and same has been withdrawn, such observations could not be made. High Court and same has been withdrawn, such observations could not be made. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that such observations, which are sought to be made by the Court in a proceedings which is sought to be not pretend so, are not innocuous because, they will have an effect for prejudging the jurisdiction of Arbitrator in Arbitration proceedings. that such observations, which are sought to be made by the Court in a proceedings which is sought to be not pretend so, are not innocuous because, they will have an effect for prejudging the jurisdiction of Arbitrator in Arbitration proceedings. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on following judgments :following judgments : (i)(1972) 3 SCC 234, in case of SHEO NATH SINGH VS. APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CALCUTTA,TAX, CALCUTTA, (ii)(2004) 12 SCC 73, in case of ASHOK KUMAR JAINVS. NEETU KATHORIA AND OTHERS,VS. NEETU KATHORIA AND OTHERS, (iii)(2002) 1 SCC 475 in case of GAGANDEEPPRATISHTHAN PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS VS. MECHANO ANDANOTHER,PRATISHTHAN PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS VS. MECHANO ANDANOTHER, 5. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on following judgments :following judgments : (i)(1972) 3 SCC 234, in case of SHEO NATH SINGH VS. APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CALCUTTA,TAX, CALCUTTA, (ii)(2004) 12 SCC 73, in case of ASHOK KUMAR JAINVS. NEETU KATHORIA AND OTHERS,VS. NEETU KATHORIA AND OTHERS, (iii)(2002) 1 SCC 475 in case of GAGANDEEPPRATISHTHAN PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS VS. MECHANO ANDANOTHER,PRATISHTHAN PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS VS. MECHANO ANDANOTHER, (iv)(2004) 6 SCC 186 in case of COLLECTOR OFCENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA VS. ALNOORI TOBACCOPRODUCTS AND ANOTHER,CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA VS. ALNOORI TOBACCOPRODUCTS AND ANOTHER, (v)(2003) 7 SCC 410 in case of NATIONAL HIGHWAYSAUTHORITY OF INDIA VS. GANGA ENTERPRISES ANDANOTHER.AUTHORITY OF INDIA VS. GANGA ENTERPRISES ANDANOTHER. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance in case of SBP & CO. VS. PATELENGINEERING LTD. AND ANOTHER, reported in (2005) placed reliance in case of SBP & CO. VS. PATELENGINEERING LTD. AND ANOTHER, reported in (2005) 8 SCC 618 in support of his submission with regard to maintainability of the petition. 7. The ratio laiddown by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments is absolutely clear but they do not lay down any absolute proposition of law which is being canvassed opposing the request of learned counsel for the appellant for reserving liberty. aforesaid judgments is absolutely clear but they do not lay down any absolute proposition of law which is being canvassed opposing the request of learned counsel for the appellant for reserving liberty. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court proposes that in case learned counsel for the appellant does not press the Letters Patent Appeal, he may make submissions, which are available in law and legally permissible, before the appropriate forum. To be decided in accordance with law.proposes that in case learned counsel for the appellant does not press the Letters Patent Appeal, he may make submissions, which are available in law and legally permissible, before the appropriate forum. To be decided in accordance with law. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed of as not pressed. Liberty is granted to the parties to make their submissions as permissible in law before the appropriate forum and the authority is directed to decide the same in accordance with law.Appeal stands disposed of as not pressed. Liberty is granted to the parties to make their submissions as permissible in law before the appropriate forum and the authority is directed to decide the same in accordance with law. [BHAGWATI PRASAD, J.] pallav [S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.]