High CourtDivision BenchDisposed of the transfer petition and the speci...

M/S MARUTI CLEAN COAL & POWER LTD. v. B.L. WADHERA & ORS.

Case / Petition Number:Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 813 of 2007
Neutral Citation:[2008] 2 S.C.R. 182

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court
Hon'ble Judges
  • Dr. Arijit Pasayat
  • P. Sathasivam
Judgment Date
2008-01-29
Court Decision / Holding
The Transfer Petition and the Special Leave Petition are disposed of with directions: 1) All writ petitions and writ appeals listed in the Transfer Petition and I.A. Nos. 2 and 3 shall be heard and disposed of by the High Court by 15.05.2008; 2) The parties shall appear before the Chief Justice–headed Bench of the High Court on 11.02.2008 to fix hearing dates; writ petitions shall normally be heard by a single Judge, but shall be tagged and heard along with writ appeals by a Division Bench; 3) Suits pending before lower courts shall be transferred to the High Court to be taken up with the writ petitions and writ appeals; 4) If fresh disputes of the same nature arise, the High Court shall transfer them to be heard with the specified matters; 5) Petitioners in the Special Leave Petition may seek modification/vacation of the impugned order dated 3.1.10.2007 in Writ Appeal No.267 of 2007; Contempt Petition No.14 of 2008 is withdrawn. The transfers and petitions are disposed of accordingly.
Final Disposition
Disposed of the transfer petition and the special leave petition with directions for coordinated hearing and transfer of related matters to the High Court, subject to specified dates and conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • M/S MARUTI CLEAN COAL & POWER LTD.

Respondents

  • B.L. Wadhera and Others

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • M/S. Suresh A. Shroff & Co.
  • • Senthil Jagadeesan

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Gopal Subramanium
  • • A.S.G.
  • • P.P. Rao
  • • Ashok H. Desai
  • • B K.K. Venugopal
  • • Ravi Shankar Prasad
  • • Ajit Kumar Sinha
  • • Jitendra Mohan Sharma
  • • Rudreshwar Singh
  • • Kaushik Poddar
  • • Kumar Ranjan
  • • Gopal Kumar Jha
  • • Sanjay Jain
  • • Sameer Parekh (for MIS Parekh And Co.)
  • • Vishwajit Singh
  • • Arvind Kumar Shukla
  • • D.D. Karnath
  • • Shweta Garg
  • • Devadatt Kamat
  • • D.S. Mahra
  • • Suparna Srivastava
  • • Rajesh Srivastava

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Supreme Court matter concerns the transfer petition (Civil) No. 813 of 2007 and related Special Leave Petitions seeking to transfer writ petitions and writ appeals pending before the Chhattisgarh High Court, along with suits in lower courts, to the High Court for coordinated hearing. The petitioners contend that the issues fall within the ambit of the Court’s earlier Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors. decision (2006) and lament the emergence of fresh litigation aimed at diluting the effect of that judgment. Respondents deny these assertions. After hearing both sides, the Court frames terms to ensure orderly adjudication: all writ petitions and writ appeals shall be heard by a Division Bench of the High Court headed by the Chief Justice on specified dates, with the writ petitions normally heard by a single judge but tagged with appeals for a Division Bench; suits pending in lower courts shall be transferred to the High Court to be taken up with the writ proceedings; and any new cases of a similar nature shall also be transferred. The petitioners in the Special Leave Petition may seek modification or vacation of the impugned order, and contempt petition proceedings are withdrawn. The transfer petition and SLP are disposed of accordingly, directing coordinated hearing by the High Court by mid-2008."

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that the core issues are broadly covered by the Supreme Court’s earlier Godavarman Thirumulpad decision (2006), and that subsequent filings appeared aimed at undermining that judgment. They urged centralized handling of the writ petitions, writ appeals, and related suits through a High Court bench to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and preserve the efficacy of the Godavarman framework.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents denied any intention to circumvent the Godavarman framework and contended that the matters before the High Court were distinct in some respects. They opposed unnecessary delays but did not substantively dispute the need for a coordinated process and the High Court’s management of the linked writ petitions, writ appeals, and suits; they supported orderly transfer and hearing as proposed by the Court."

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors.[2006] 5 SCC 28Mentioned OnlyCited as a guiding authority to indicate the broad applicability of the Godavarman framework, but not directly invoked as controlling precedent for the present disposition.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against M/S MARUTI CLEAN COAL & POWER LTD. v. B.L. WADHERA & ORS. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2008] 2 S.C.R. 182 A MIS MARUTI CLEAN COAL & POWER LTD. II. B.L. WADHERA & ORS. (TranSfer Petition (Civil) No. 813 of 2007) B JANUARY 29, 2008 **(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.)** -1' _t_ _Transfer of Cases:_ _Transfer petition_ - _Seeking transfer of certain writ_ c _petitions, writ appeals pending before Chattisgarh High Court and certain suits pending before civil courts in the State_ - _Order of High Court challenged before Supreme Court in SLP_ - _HELD: Transfer petition and SLP disposed of with directions, inter alia: parties would appear on given date before the Bench_ D _presided over by the Chief Justice of High Court_ - _All writ petitions would be tagged and would be heard along with writ appeals by_ a _Division Bench_ - _Bench presided over by the Chief Justice would transfer civil suits pending before lower courts to High Court to be taken up alongwith the writ petitions[If ][cases involving dispute pending before ]_ E _[and writ appeals ]_[-] _High Court are instituted after instant order, the same would be trarr§ferred to and heard by said Division Bench of the High Court_ - _Petitioners in SLP would be at liberty to seek modification/vacation of order impugned therein before_ F _[Division Bench ][of ][High Court. ]_ -1· ...,.. _f'_ ~ _TN. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India and Ors._ **[2006] 5 SCC 28 - cited.** CIVIL ORIGINAL/APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 813 of 2007. G WITH )- ,, SLP(C) No. 21632 of 2007, SLP(C) No. 20238 of 2006, Cont.Pet.(C) No. _27512007_ in SLP(C) No. 20238/2006 and Cont.Pet(C) No. 14/2008 in T.P.(C) No. 813/2007. H 182 _-+_ M/S MARUTI CLEAN COAL & POWER LTD. _v._ 183 ·~ _+-_ ' ## B.L. WADHERA & ORS. [PASAYAT, J.] Mukul Rohtagi, Ranjit Kumar, V. Krishnamurthy, Ram A Jethmalani, C.S. Vaidyanathan, C. Mukhopadhya, Amit Sibbal, T. Raja, M/S. Suresh A. Shroff & Co. and Senthil Jagadeesan for the Petitioner. Gopal Subramanium, A.S.G., P.P. Rao, Ashok H. Desai, B K.K. Venugopal, Ravi Shankar Prasad, Ajit Kumar Sinha, Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Rudreshwar Singh, Kaushik Poddar, Kumar Ranjan, Gopal Kumar Jha, Sanjay jain, Sameer Parekh (for MIS Parekh And Co.), Vishwajit Singh, Arvind Kumar Shukla, D.D. Karnath, Shweta Garg, Devadatt Kamat, D.S. Mahra, Suparna Srivastava and Rajesh Srivastava for the Respondents. c The Judgment of the Court was delivered by **Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.** Heard learned counsel for the parties. Delay in filing counter affidavit is condoned. Amendment[D ] allowed. . > ~ ,..\. ~ In the transfer petition, prayer is made for transfer of certain Writ Petitions before the Chhatisgarh High Court, Writ Appeals and Suits filed before the Lower Court in the State of Chattisgarh. In S.L.P. (C) No.21632 of 2007, challenge is to the interim order dated 31.10.2007 passed in Writ Appeal No.267 of 2007. E ·Learned counsel for the petitioners in the Transfer Petition and the Special Leave Petition submitted that though the subject matter of controversy in all the aforesaid cases is broadly covered F by a decision of this Court in _IN. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs._ · _Union of India and Ors._ (2006 (5) sec 28), the fresh rounds of litigation have been and/or are being started with the sole object of taking away the effect of the judgment in the said case. This is stoutly denied by learned counsel appearing for the respondents. G .-( Considering the nature of the controversy, we feel that interest of justice would be best served if the Transfer Petition (along with I.A. Nos.2 and 3 in the Transfer Petition) and the Special Leave Petition are disposed of on the following terms: 1. All the Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals detailed in the pt +- ' 184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R. A B c D E F Transfer Petition and the I .A. Nos.2 and 3 shall be heard and disposed of by the High Court by 15.05.2008. 2. The parties are directed to appear before the Bench presided over by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the High Court, without further notice, on 11.02.2008 so that a firm date can be fixed for starting hearing of the Writ Petitions and the Writ Appeals. Though the Writ Petitions are normally heard by a single Judge in the High Cour:t. in view of the fact that the Writ Appeals are to be heard by the Division Bench, all those Writ Petitions shall be tagged on and shall be heard by a Division Bench. 3. Ir is stated that certain Suits are pending before the Lower Courts. The Bench presided over by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the High Court shall transfer all such Suits to the High Court, to be taken up along with the Writ Petitions and the Writ Appeals. 4. If cases concerning the nature of the dispute pending before the High Court are instituted hereinafter, the High Court shall take up them along with the Writ Petitions, Writ Appeals and Suits which have been directed to be heard, and in case of Suits, by directing transfer to the High Court if they are filed in Lower Courts. 5. It is open to the petitioners in the Special Leave Petition to move, if so advised, the Bench hearing the Writ Petitions, Writ Appeals and Suits for modification/vacation of the impugned order dated 3.1.10.2007 passed in Writ Appeal No.267 of 2007. -l' -t _I_ _-<_ ....,, _+.._ ~ '> The lransfer Petition and the Special Leave Petition are disposed of accordingly. G Contempt Petition No.14 of 2008 is withdrawn in view of the orders passed above. .,... No orders on the application for impleadment. H R.P. Transfer petition and special leave petition are disposed of.