TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (4) TMI 685
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 1976 (for short, "SAFEMA"). He filed a Writ Petition in the Gujarat High Court questioning the said order of detention as also the order passed under SAFEMA. The said Writ Petition was allowed. A Special Leave Petition filed thereagainst by the competent authority was also dismissed. Representations were made by him for return of the said properties. An order was passed by the competent authority on or about 30.1.1996 canceling the Order dated 24.9.1979 whereby and whereunder the properties were directed to be forfeited. Allegedly, whereas the fixed deposit receipt was returned to him, the immovable properties were not. A Writ Petition was filed by the appellant. Allegations made in the said writ petition were denied and disputed. Respond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in question to them and on the other hand, it is prima facie established that third party interest has created by way of sale deed since long and same has not been challenged by the Petitioners on anybody else and the said registered sale deed is in operation as on today. Therefore, whether the aforesaid sale-deed is legal and the same has been executed by the Petitioners or the same is false and fabricated, cannot be decided in this proceedings initiated by the Petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioners are required to initiate appropriate proceedings before appropriate Court. So far as the decisions, upon which the learned counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance, are concerned, I am in total agre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e matter, we made it clear to Shri Sanjanwala that we may not pass this order and may not grant simple permission to withdraw the Appeal, but we may like to decide this Appeal on merits and ultimately the person concerned in the matter may have to even face the consequences. Thereupon, Shri Sanjanwala gave up his request." Mr. Ashok Desai, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the Division Bench of the High Court committed a manifest error in passing the said order, insofar as it failed to take into consideration that by preferring the appeal, the appellant could not have been put in a worse condition. Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, however, had drawn o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... there exists such a right, a disputant must have a remedy in terms of the doctrine ubi jus ibi remedium. In Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) by Lrs. and Another v Ramesh Chander Agarwal and Others [(2003) 6 SCC 220], this Court held; "22. The dispute between the parties was eminently a civil dispute and not a dispute under the provisions of the Companies Act. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers jurisdiction upon the civil courts to determine all disputes of civil nature unless the same is barred under a statute either expressly or by necessary implication. Bar of jurisdiction of a civil court is not to be readily inferred. A provision seeking to bar jurisdiction of a civil court requires strict interpretation. The court, it is well ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntertained as the impugned order had been passed consequent to and in furtherance of the purported consent order passed by the High Court. Ordinarily, the High Court would not have issued a writ of certiorari for quashing its own order. Even in that view of the matter it is apposite that this petition under Article 32 should be entertained." See Swamy Atmananda and Ors. v Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam and Others [(2005) 10 SCC 51]. There is nothing on record to show that the Division Bench while entertaining the Letters Patent Appeal intended to enter into any other question. Judges' record as is well known is final and conclusive. Any dispute in relation thereto must be raised before the same Court. In Messrs. Associated Tubewells Ltd. ....