Miss Lucy
← All judgments

M/S Kunj Aluminium P.Ltd vs M/S Koninklijke Philips Electronics Nv

Supreme Court4 April 2011Gyan Sudha Misra · Markandey Katju

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

An appellate court, in disposing of an appeal by way of affirmance or otherwise, must provide reasons for its decision, even if brief; an order of affirmance that merely states the lower court's judgment suffers from no legal infirmity without discussing the facts or providing substantive reasoning is remittable error and must be set aside for fresh hearing.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2915 OF 2011

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.9553 of 2010)

M/s. Kunj Aluminium Private Limited .. Appellant (s)

-versus-

M/s. Koninklijke Phillips Electronics NV .. Respondents (s)

J U D G M E N T

Markandey Katju, J.

1. Leave granted.

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 merits of the controversy we find that the

impugned judgment of the Division Bench dated 30.11.2009 gives no

reasons.

2

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."

5. In our opinion this was not the way to dispose off an 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 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.

..........................................J.

[MARKANDEY KATJU]

..........................................J.

[GYAN SUDHA MISRA]

NEW DELHI;

APRIL 04, 2011

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free