9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 968X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich was to be filed within ten days. Three days time was allowed to file rejoinder. The learned Single Judge, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, made an observation that in the meanwhile, it will be in the interest of the parties to sit together and explore the possibility of commissioning and operating the pipeline. The case was directed to be taken up on 24-8-2000. 2. On 24-8-2000 when the petition came up before learned Single Judge, it was noticed that because of delay on the part of the appellant in filing appeal, rejoinder was not filed by the appellant. While granting time to the appellant to file rejoinder, hearing of the application was postponed to 18-9-2000. 3. The appellant s version is that the senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had on 7-8-2000 strenuously pressed for orders to the effect that the appellant should be allowed to commission and operate the pipeline and that no third party rights should be created in respect of the pipeline. It is the appellant s version that as regards commissioning and operation of the pipeline, the learned Single Judge observed that the parties may sit together and explore the possibility of commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In the facts of this I am also not inclined to grant any order of restraint at this stage. List this case again on 18th September, 2000 for arguments, DASTI." 6. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent about maintainability of the appeal on the ground that it is neither an order granting nor an order refusing to grant any measure under section 9 of the Act, therefore, the same is not appealable under section 37 of the Act. This order is also not appealable either under section 10 of Delhi High Court Act or under clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 7. We heard, the learned counsel for the parties both on the maintainabi-lity of the appeal and on merits, but we will first try to deal with the question of maintainability of the appeal. Briefly, the facts as stated by the appellant are that on 23-9-1994 pursuant to the bid invited by the Government for development of petroleum resources in the contract area defined as Hazira Gas Field, a Production Sharing Contract was made between the Government of India on the one hand and the Gujarat State Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. (GSPC) - the respondent and Niko Resources-appellant on the other hand. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was made, but on the next date when inability was expressed by the respondent to continue with the statement, request was made by the appellant to pass appropriate order and as the same has not been passed by learned Single Judge, it affects valuable rights of the appellant and the same would be appealable in view of ratio of the decision of Supreme Court in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania [1981] 4 SCC 8 read with the two decisions of this Court in Nisha Raj v. Pratap K. Kaula 1995 I A.D. (Delhi) 533 and Exports Unlimited v. Delhi State Industrial Development Corpn. 1996 (37) DRJ 109. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contends that the impugned order dated 24-8-2000 is simply an order adjourning the hearing of the application for grant of interim measures. It is neither an order granting nor refusing to grant any measure under section 9 of the Act. As such, it is not appealable. Ex parte order was passed on 4-8-2000 in favour of the appellant. On 24-8-2000, learned Single Judge while adjourning the application, observed that it is not possible to pass any further order of restraint at this stage . Such an order will not be a judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wance to the Trial Judge and raise a presumption that any discretionary order which he passes must be presumed to be correct unless it is ex facie legally erroneous or causes grave and substantial injustice. (2)That the interlocutory order in order to be a judgment must contain the traits and trappings of finality either when the order decides the questions in controversy in an ancillary proceeding or in the suit itself or in a part of the proceedings." 10. In addition to the above and the tests laid down by Sir White, C.J., the Supreme Court emphasized that the tests laid down by Sir Couch, C.J., in Justices of the Peace for Calcutta v. Oriental Gas Co., VIII Beng LR 433, as modified by later decisions of the Calcutta High Court in Chandi Charan Saha v. Jnanendra Nath Bhattacharjee 29 CLJ 225; Mathura Sundari Dassi v. Haran Chandra Shaha AIR 1916 Cal. 361; Shorab Merwanji Modi v. Mansata Film Distributors AIR 1957 Cal. 727 and Mohammed Felumeah v. S. Mondal AIR 1960 Cal. 582, should be also borne in mind. 11. In Nisha Raj s case ( supra ), the appeal was, filed by the plaintiff against an order passed by learned Single Judge only issuing notice to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
