Jindal Vijaynagar Steel Limited vs Jindal Praxair Oxygen Company Private ... on 31 January, 2005
It is, therefore, far from doubt that the proceedings before the High Court and the CLB are not between the same parties. Furthermore, under Section 10 of the CPC, a party cannot be restrained from proceeding with the previously instituted suits. It is not under dispute that the writ petition has been filed in November, 2004, while the petition before the CLB has been filed prior in point of time. Thus, these essential pre-requisites of Section 10 are absent in the matter before me. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the applicant on the judgments in Dr. Mrs. Mrunalini Devi Puar v. Gaekwad Investment Corporation Pvt. Ltd; National Textile Corporation (Uttar Pradesh) Ltd. v. Swadeshi Polytex Ltd and Arjies Aluminim Udyog v. Sudhir Batra would not go to the rescue of the applicant in as much as in the said cases, the proceedings in the subsequently filed suits were stayed until the conclusion of the proceedings in the previously instituted suits, on fulfilling the requirements of Section 10 of the CPC, as provided under the Act. Having found that the matter in issue before the CLB is substantially in issue in the writ petition instituted before the High Court, there is little doubt that any decision that may be taken by the High Court in the writ proceedings would necessarily have direct bearing on the CLB proceedings, in which case there would be every possibility of conflicting decisions on the common issues. Against this background, the inherent power of the CLB assumes utmost importance.