Allowed¶22

Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India

Bombay HC7 Jul 2025WP/501/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal dismissed without opportunity of hearing; non-production of board resolution; pre-deposit objection; curable defects; gross violation of principles of natural justice; remand to Appellate Authority for fresh disposal in accordance with law; proper opportunity of hearing before final orders; all contentions left open; rule made absolute; no order for costs; Alkem Laboratories Ltd v Union of India; Bombay High Court writ petition 2025.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute: impugned order set aside; Petitioner's Appeal remanded to the Appellate Authority for fresh disposal in accordance with law with proper opportunity of hearing; all contentions left open; no order for costs. ¶22

Alkem Laboratories Ltd. vs Union of India — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned appellate order, which dismissed the Appeal on grounds such as non-production of a board resolution and pre-deposit objections without affording an opportunity of hearing, should be set aside and the Appeal remanded for fresh disposal. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

The impugned order is set aside and the Petitioner's Appeal is remanded to the Appellate Authority for a fresh disposal in accordance with law.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

Proper opportunity of hearing must be given to the Petitioner before any final orders are made.

¶20

Key takeaways

All contentions of all parties are left open for adjudication by the Appellate Authority in the first instance.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No. 501 of 2025 (Alkem Laboratories Ltd v. Union of India and Ors.), decided 07 July 2025 (Sonak & Jain, JJ.). The Appellate Authority had dismissed the Petitioner's Appeal on grounds including non-production of a board resolution and pre-deposit objections without affording any opportunity of hearing. Noting that this Bench and Co-ordinate Benches had already set aside similar orders passed by the same officer (who no longer holds the appellate position), and that Respondents' counsel fairly conceded the order deserved to be set aside given several decisions of this Court on orders disposing of Appeals in gross violation of principles of natural justice by relying on curable defects, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the Appeal to the Appellate Authority for fresh disposal in accordance with law, directing that proper opportunity of hearing be given before any final orders; all contentions were left open for adjudication by the Appellate Authority in the first instance. Rule made absolute without costs.

¶1

14-WP-501-2025.DOCX

¶2

Chaitanya

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 501 OF 2025

¶5

Digitally signed byCHAITANYA CHAITANYA ASHOK ASHOK JADHAV JADHAV Date: 2025.07.08 11:55:28 +0530

¶6

Alkem Laboratories Ltd … Petitioner Versus Union Of India And Ors. … Respondents

¶7

Mr Ishaan V. Patkar a/w Mr Vinit V. Raje, Mr Yashwant J. Patil, for Petitioner.

¶8

Mr Karan Adik a/w Mr Harshad Shingnapurkar, for Respondents.

¶9

CORAM : M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. DATED : 07 JULY 2025

¶10

PC:-

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

¶12

Rule. The rule is made returnable immediately, at the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

The impugned order is one in a series of orders made by this particular officer dismissing Appeals on grounds like nonproduction of a board resolution etc., without even affording the Appellants an opportunity of hearing.

¶14

This Bench and the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court have set aside such orders and remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority after ascertaining that this particular

¶15

Page 1 of 2

¶16

14-WP-501-2025.DOCX

¶17

officer was no longer holding the position of the Appellate Authority.

¶18

In this particular case, Mr Patkar points out that the board resolution was in fact produced and the other grounds relating to pre-deposit were untenable or atleast arguable. He pointed out that without hearing the Petitioner/Appellant, there was no question of disposing of this Appeal.

¶19

The learned counsel for the Respondents, quite fairly, agreed that the impugned order could be set aside given the several decisions of this Court dealing with orders made by this particular officer disposing of Appeals in gross violation of principles of natural justice by relying upon curable defects, if any, etc.

¶20

Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the Petitioner's Appeal to the Appellate Authority for a fresh disposal in accordance with law. Proper opportunity of hearing must be given to the Petitioner before any final orders are made.

¶21

All contentions of all parties are however left open for adjudication by the Appellate Authority in the first instance.

¶22

The rule is made absolute in the above terms without any order for costs.

¶23

All concerned must act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶24

(Jitendra Jain, J)

¶25

(M.S. Sonak, J)

¶26

Page 2 of 2

Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ajitkumar Jain vs the Official Assignee of Bombay

United India Insurance Company Limited vs the Official Liquidator of C Mahendra Exports Ltd.

Ajitkumar Jain vs the Official Assignee of Bombay

Aarti Drugs Limited vs Union of India

Me Hin Tech Edge Solutions vs Union of India

Ms Novex Enterprises vs The State of Maharashtra