15 September 2016
Supreme Court
Download

GLOBAL CEMENT LTD Vs DEPUTY REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD .

Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH,ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
Case number: C.A. No.-009322-009322 / 2016
Diary number: 6109 / 2015
Advocates: SAURABH TRIVEDI Vs


1

Page 1

1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9322 OF 2016

[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 6538 OF 2015 ] GLOBAL CEMENT LTD AND ORS.                  Appellant (s)

                               VERSUS DEPUTY REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT  AT AHMEDABAD AND ORS. Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J. 1. Leave granted.   2. The appellants are aggrieved by the short order dated 22.01.2015 passed by the High Court in Suo Moto proceedings  for  contempt  initiated  against  the appellants.  The operative portion of the order reads as follows :-

"The respondents are directed to deposit the  amount  in  terms  of  the  order  of learned Single Judge and if the amount is not  deposited,  the  respondents  are directed  to  remain  present  on  the  next date of hearing."   

3. Mr. H. P. Rawal, learned senior counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 fairly submits that there was no direction by learned Single Judge for deposit of any amount.  However, the learned senior counsel submits that the subject matter of the contempt was entirely

2

Page 2

2

different.   4. We do not deem it proper to go into any of the contentions in that regard for the simple reason that the limited grievance of the appellants before us is only  on  the  direction  in  the  impugned  order  to deposit some amounts in terms of the order of the learned Single Judge and if not, to remain present in Court  for  further  proceedings  with  the  contempt. However, the learned senior counsel submits that the appellants have other submissions on merits.     5. Both  parties  are  free  to  raise  all  available contentions  before  the  Division  Bench  of  the  High Court.  Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated  22.01.2015 and  remit the  matter to  the High Court.   6. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of. 7. Interlocutory  application  for  intervention  is dismissed.   8. We make it clear that we have not considered the matter on merits and it is for the High Court to consider all contentions raised before it.   

No costs.    .......................J.

             [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]  

.......................J.               [ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]  New Delhi; September 15, 2016.