This appeal challenges an interlocutory order. The High Court held that the trial court exercised its discretion reasonably. The appeal was dismissed without adjudicating the royalty claim, which was left for appropriate steps in the trial court.
Appeal dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-= : 1 : =-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARYORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
APPEAL NO.585 OF 2005
IN
CHAMBER SUMMMONS NO.920 OF 2003
IN
SUIT NO.611 OF 2001
Carona Limited ..Appellant.
V/s.
Burjor S. Sidhwa ..Respondent.
Mr.Haresh Mansukhani for appellant.
Mr.Girish Desai i/b.Rajesh Shah & Co. for respondent.
Mr.R.T.Bhagat,representative of Court Receiver present.
CORAM : V.C. DAGA AND
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 13TH SEPTEMBER, 2005.
P.C. :-
1. Heard the learned counsel for the rival
parties. Perused the appeal memo and order impugned.
-= : 2 : =-
It is needless to mention that in dealing with the
matter raised at the appellate stage, the appellate
Court is normally expected to be slow in interfering
with the exercise of discretion solely on the ground
that if it had considered the matter at the trial
stage, it may have come to a contrary conclusion. If
the discretion has been exercised by the trial Court
reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the
appellate Court would have taken a different view may
not justify interference with the trial Court’s
discretion. If it appears to the appellate Court that
in exercising its discretion, the trial Court has acted
unreasonably or capriciously or has ignored relevant
facts, then it is open for the appellate Court to
interfere with the trial Court’s order. Having
examined the impugned order challenged in this order,
we are of the considered view that the view taken by
the learned Single Judge is a reasonable and possible
view. The discretion has been properly exercised. In
that view of the matter, no interference is called for.
2. So far as the arrears of amount of royalty
is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant submits that the entire amount of royalty has
already been paid on monthly basis. He undertakes to
supply the statement of deposits made from time to time
-= : 3 : =-
to the counsel appearing for the respondents within one
week from today. The statement made is taken on
record. Needless to mention that we do not propose to
enter into the controversy as to whether or not the
amount of arrears of royalty has been paid. In the
event the respondent finds that the amount of royalty
is due and recoverable from the appellant, then, it
would be open for the respondent to take appropriate
steps in the trial Court to recover the same thereof.
3. With the above observations, the appeal
stands dismissed in limini with no order as to costs.
(V.C. DAGA, J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate court should interfere with the trial court's discretionary order.
Whether the royalty arrears claimed by the respondent should be adjudicated on appeal.
Carona Limited
Burjor S. Sidhwa
V.C. Daga
J.P. Devadhar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court