M/s. Kunj Aluminium
Private Limited Vs-M/s. Koninklijke Phillips Electronics NV
J U D G M E N T
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."
7.
In
our opinion this was not the way to dispose off an appeal. The impugned order is
too cryptive. 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 vs. 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.
8.
Appeal
is allowed. No costs.
..........................................J.
[MARKANDEY KATJU]
..........................................J.
[GYAN SUDHA MISRA]
NEW
DELHI;
APRIL
04, 2011
Back
Pages: 1 2