A
B
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 236
MIS. KUNJ ALUMINIUM PRIVATE LIMITED
v.
MIS. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NV
(Civil Appeal No. 2915 of 2011)
APRIL 4, 2011
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]
Judgment/Order - Non-reasoned order - Letters Patent
appeal - Division Bench of High Court did not give any
C reason for dismissing appeal against the order of the Single
Judge - Justification - Held: Not justified - The order of
Division Bench was too cryptive - There should have been
at least a brief discussion of facts and some reasons - Even
an order of affirrnance must give some reasons, even if brief
o - Matter remanded to Division Bench of High Court for
consideration afresh.
Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai
KshetriyaGramin Bank v. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and Ors.
E JT (2009) 4 SC 519 - relied on.
Case Law Reference:
JT (2009) 4 SC 519
relied on
Para 5
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
F 2915 of 2011.
G
From the Judgment & Order dated 30.11.2009 of the High
Court of Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal No. 613 of 2009.
Mrigang Dutta (for Rajiv Mehta) for the Appellant.
Sudhir Chandra, N. Mahabir, Sheetal Vohra (for R.
Chandrachud) for the Respondent.
The Judgment of (he Court was delivered by
H
236
KUNJ ALUMINIUM PRIVATE LTD. v. KONINKLIJKE
237
PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NV
MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. 1. Leave granted.
A
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
B
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."
c
D
5. In our opinion this was not the way to dispose off an
E
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
F
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.
(
6. Appeal is allowed. No costs.
G
B.B.B.
Appeal allowed.
H
Lex