Gujarat High Court
Claris Lifesciences Limited vs Union Of India & on 21 April, 2014
Author: Ks Jhaveri
Bench: Ks Jhaveri, A.G.Uraizee
C/LPA/1572/2012 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1572 of 2012
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13797 of 2011
with CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13173 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any
order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
================================================================
CLARIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED....Appellant(s)
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR SN SOPARKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR MR P A MEHD AND MR
INAYATALI SAIYED, ADVOCATES for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR IH SYED, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE
Page 1 of 5
C/LPA/1572/2012 JUDGMENT
Date : 21/04/2014
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI)
1. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the parties.
2. This intra-court Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgement and order dated 08.11.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 13797 of 2011 whereby the learned Single Judge refused grant of interim relief while admitting the writ petition. The appellant by way of the writ petition have challenged the letter dated 25.05.20111 issued by the respondents and have also sought for direction for restraining the respondents from applying the notification S.O. 725 (E) dated 27.08.1998 and the prices fixed therein to the product of the appellant.
3. Mr. S.N. Soparkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Medh, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge has seriously erred in refusing interim relief on the ground that the legislation is a beneficial legislation without taking into consideration all the facts of the present case. He contended that in fact the appellant has a prima facie case as the notification dated 27.08.1998 shall not be applicable to the appellant and the appellant company shall be put into unnecessary hardship and loss if the said relief is not granted to the appellant.
3.1 Mr. Soparkar has drawn the attention of this Court to Page 2 of 5 C/LPA/1572/2012 JUDGMENT the order dated 27.11.2009 and submitted that the learned Single Judge has seriously erred in nullifying the effect of an interim order granted by another learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 11459 of 2008 after a detailed bi- parte hearing when the facts and circumstances therein are identical to the present matter.
4. We have heard learned advocates for both the sides. The learned Single Judge after passing order dated 08.11.2012 himself stayed the operation of the order thereby permitting continuation of the interim order till 30.11.2012. Thereafter, while hearing the present appeal, the earlier Division Bench of this Court continued the interim order and since then the said interim order has been in operation till date. We are of the view that when similar facts had come up before this Court was decided earlier by this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 11459 of 2008 and when interim relief was granted therein vide orders dated 15.09.2008 and 27.11.2009, the learned Single Judge ought to have followed suit. It is a settled proposition of law that when interim relief is granted in a similar matter involving similar issues, relief should not be refused in the subsequent petition. However, in order to protect the interest of both the sides we think it fit to stay the order dated 08.11.2012 and pass the following order:
(i) The impugned order dated 08.11.2012 passed in Special Civil Application No. 13797 of 2011 is hereby stayed till final disposal of the writ petition.
(ii)In the meantime, the Managing Director of the appellant Company, after getting a resolution passed by the Board Page 3 of 5 C/LPA/1572/2012 JUDGMENT of Directors, shall file an undertaking to the effect that in case the appellant Company finally does not succeed in the writ petition, it shall make payment of requisite amount within four months from the date of the final order passed by the learned Single Judge subject to its right of preferring appeal.
(iii)Such an undertaking shall be filed within a period of six weeks from today.
(iv)This Court has not entered into the merits of the matter.
(v)In view of the order passed in Special Civil Application No. 11459 of 2008, it shall be open to either side to request the learned Single Judge to take up the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably on a day to day basis.
(vi)Looking to the fact that the issue has been pending for adjudication since 2008, the learned Single Judge may hear Special Civil Applications No. 11459 of 2008 and 13797 of 2011 on a day-to-day basis.
(vii)Accordingly, both the writ petitions being Special Civil Applications No. 11459 of 2008 and 13797 of 2011 shall be placed before the appropriate court on 16.06.2014.
(viii)It is also clarified that if the undertaking as directed herein above is not filed within the stipulated time, the aforesaid interim arrangement shall stand cancelled automatically.
5. With the aforesaid directions and observations, appeal is allowed. Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly.
Page 4 of 5 C/LPA/1572/2012 JUDGMENT
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.)
(A.G.URAIZEE,J)
divya
Page 5 of 5