TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (7) TMI 770
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent further submitted that he does not want to argue the case on merits as he has not filed any counter affidavit to vacate the stay granted by this Court and by virtue of the order of interim injunction granted by this Court, thousands of investors were affected and the 2nd respondent is not able to proceed with the acquisition of shares as per the public announcement and therefore, he confines his contention only to the availability of the statutory remedy, which is efficacious and hence, prayed for dismissing the writ petition. 4. Mr. AR. L. Sundaresan, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, raised two preliminary objections that the writ has been admitted and rule nisi has been ordered and the Court on being satisfied prima facie, passed an order of injunction and hence, without calling for the records from the 1st respondent and without disclosing their defence, the 2nd respondent is not at all entitled to raise the plea of maintainability in the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. 5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the 2nd ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar Pradesh Rajaya Khanki Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti [2008] 12 SCC 675 wherein it has been held in para 38 that : "True it is that issuance of rule nisi or passing of interim orders is a relevant consideration for not dismissing a petition if it appears to the High Court that the matter could be decided by a writ court. It has been so held even by this Court in several cases that even if alternative remedy is available, it cannot be held that a writ petition is not maintainable. In our judgment, however, it cannot be laid down as a proposition of law that once a petition is admitted, it could never be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. If such bald contention is upheld even this Court cannot order dismissal of a writ petition which ought not to have been entertained by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in view of availability of alternative and equally efficacious remedy to the aggrieved party, once the High Court has entertained a writ petition albeit wrongly and granted the relief to the petitioner." Therefore, in my opinion, even after the writ petition was admitted and rule nisi was ordered, this Court can entertain the plea whether the writ is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s case there is violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, the writ petition is maintainable. 14. The learned Senior Counsel further elaborated his argument and brought to the notice of this Court, how there is violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order. According to the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. AR. L. Sundaresan, appearing for the petitioner, without giving opportunity to the petitioner to submit his argument, order was passed by the 6th respondent and the matter was heard by the 7th respondent and an order was passed by the 6th respondent without considering the objection of the petitioner. 15. Before going into the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that there was violation of principles of natural justice, I would like to state the ingredients of principles of natural justice and whether there were violated in this case. 16. There are two essential elements, which constitute the principles of natural justice. One is "No Man shall be Judge in his own case" and the second is "Audi Alteram Partem", which means no one should be condemned unheard. 17. In the case of Union of India v. Tulsiram Pat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssues highlighted in the complaint and also the response of the ICICI Securities Limited, who are managers to the captioned offer. The 1st respondent further permitted the petitioner to make further submissions, if required. Thereafter, the petitioner by his letter dated 7-5-2009 submitted the additional submissions in support of the complaint. Thereafter, the 1st respondent considered all those submissions made by the complainant and passed the impugned order. In the impugned order, the 1st respondent has considered the various points raised by the petitioner and came to the conclusion that in their opinion, no prima facie case is made out by the petitioner to intervene in the matter. 22. At this juncture, I want to make it clear that I am not passing any order on merits and I have referred to the impugned order only for the limited purpose of pointing out that the contentions of the petitioner were considered by the 1st respondent. Therefore, from the admission of the petitioner, in his letter dated 7-5-2009, it is made clear that he was given opportunity to submit his case and the opponent objection was also given to him and the petitioner was permitted to submit his explanatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....taghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd.'s case (supra) wherein it has also been held "It is now well recognised that where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute only must be availed of. This rule was stated with great clarity by Willes, J in Wolverhampton New Waterworks Co. v. Hawkesford in the following passage : There are three classes of cases in which a liability may be established founded upon statute. But there is a third class, viz. where a liability not existing at common law is created by a statute which at the same time gives a special and particular remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by the statute must be followed, and it is not competent to the party to pursue the course applicable to cases of the second class. The form given by the statute must be adopted and adhered to. The rule laid down in this passage was approved by the House of Lords in Neville v. London Express Newspapers Ltd. 1919 All ER Rep 61: 1919 AC 368 and has been reaffirmed by the Privy Council in Attorney-General of Trinidad & Tobago v. Gordon Grant & Co. Ltd., 1935 AC 532 and Secretary of State v. Mask & Co. AIR....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to find out whether any appeal remedy is available and I proceed on the basis that against the order of the 1st respondent no appeal remedy is available and entertained writ. Had it been brought to my notice about the availability of alternative remedy, I would not have entertained the writ petition. 32. In this context, the following observations of the Supreme Court made in the case of U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey 2005 (8) SCC 264 is relevant. "16. If, as was noted in Ram & Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana 1985 (3) SCC 267 the appeal is from Caesar to Caesar's wife' the existence of alternative remedy would be a mirage and an exercise in futility. In the instance case the writ petitioners had indicated the reasons as to why they thought that the alternative remedy would not be efficacious. Though the High Court did not go into that plea relating to bias in detail, yet it felt that alternative remedy would not be a bar to entertain the writ petition. Since the High Court has elaborately dealt with the question as to why the statutory remedy available was not efficacious, it would not be proper for this Court to consider the question again. When the High Court had ent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....said judgment, it was further held in "18. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to take note of the few expressions in R. v. Hillington, London Borough Counsel 1974 (1) QB 720 which seems to bring out the position well. Lord Widgery, C.J., stated in this case (All ER pp. 648f-649b). 'It has always been a principle that certiorari will go only where there is no other equally effective and convenient remedy. ****** The statutory system of appeals is more effective and more convenient than application for certiorari and the principal reason when it may prove itself more convenient and more effective is that an appeal to (say) the Secretary of State can be disposed of at one hearing whether the issue between them is a matter of law or fact or policy or opinion or a combination of some or all of these... whereas of course an appeal for certiorari is limited to cases where the issue is a matter of law and then only it is a matter of law appearing on the face of the order. ****** An application for certiorari has however this advantage that it is speedier and cheaper than the other methods and in a proper case therefore it may well be right to allow it to be used. . . I would, ....