TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 1202
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the requirement of supply of the copy to the caveators, after hearing the submissions of the parties, the petitioners therein would be directed to serve the copy of the petition to the caveators and they would be heard before passing any orders in the company petition. 4. The petitioners challenged the order dated 12th September, 2013 before this Court in writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.5889/2013, which was listed before DB-V on 16th September, 2013 when it was adjourned to 10th October, 2013. The first prayer made in the said petition is that the order dated 12th September, 2013 passed by the Company Law Board be declared as nullity. 5. On 16th September, 2013, the Member (Judicial) of Company Law Board heard the arguments of the petitioners therein and listed the matter for arguments of the respondents therein for 25th September, 2013 and, in the meantime, directed the status quo to be maintained with respect to the shareholding, board pattern and right of call option. 6. According to the petitioners, the order dated 16th September, 2013 passed by the Member (Judicial) amounts to review of the order dated 12th September, 2013 because neith....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s high time that the practice of impleading judicial officers disposing of civil proceedings as parties to writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or special leave petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution of India was stopped. We are strongly deprecating such a practice." (Emphasis supplied) 9. In Fakeerappa v. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory, (2004) 2 SCC 473, the Supreme Cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot be impleaded as a party respondent. 11. During the course of hearing, the judgment of Savitri Devi (supra) was specifically pointed out to Petitioner No.2 who insisted that he has rightly impleaded the Company Law Board and Member (Judicial) as respondents No.1 and 2 and he referred to Pespsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 49, C. Ravinchandaran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee, (1995) 5 SCC 457 and P.L. Lakhanpal v. A.N. Ray, ILR (1974) 1 Delhi 725 in support of his contention. 12. The submission of petitioner no.2 is misconceived and unsustainable. In Pepsi Foods (supra) relied upon by the petitioner, the Supreme Court struck down the name of Special Judicial Magistrate, whose order was under challenge, from the array of the parties. In P.L Lakhanpal (supra), the writ challenged the appointment of the Chief Justice of India and in C. Ravichandran Iyer (supra), the allegations were made against the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court and therefore, they were impleaded as the respondents. However, impleadment of a judicial officer, whose order/judgment is under challenge, was not an issue in both the cases. 13. This Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to interfere under Article 226 where there is alternative remedy. The High Court has imposed on itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its writ jurisdiction. Rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. The judgments referred to by the petitioner mentioned above do not lay down that the writ jurisdiction should be exercised even when an equally efficacious remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner. 17. In Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Association of India, (2011) 15 SCC 337, the orders passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission were challenged by writ petition before this Court on the ground that the orders were passed without jurisdiction and ex facie beyond the scope of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The writ petition was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court which was challenged before the Supreme Court on the ground that the writ petition should not have been entertained as a statutory remedy of appeal was available under Section 19 of the Consum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act. In support of this argument, ShriVaidyanathan relied upon the judgments of this Court in East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs [AIR 1962 SC 1893 : (1963) 3 SCR 338] , State of W.B. v. North Adjai Coal Co. Ltd. [(1971) 1 SCC 309] , Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks [(1998) 8 SCC 1] and Popcorn Entertainment v. City Industrial Development Corpn. [(2007) 9 SCC 593] 10. ShriVaidyanathan also submitted that the State Commission should have exercised restraint and deferred the hearing of the complaint because the writ petitions filed by the respondents questioning its jurisdiction to pass the order dated 27-9-2006 were pending before the High Court. 11. We have considered the respective arguments/submissions. There cannot be any dispute that the power of the High Courts to issue directions, orders or writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, certiorari, mandamus, quo warranto and prohibition under Article 226 of the Constitution is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be curtailed by parliamentary legislation-L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India [(1997) 3 SCC 261 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 577] . However, it is one thing to sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ability 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 AC 368 : (1918-19) All ER Rep 61 (HL)] and has been reaffirmed by the Privy Council in Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v. Gordon Grant and Co. Ltd. [1935 AC 532 (PC)] and Secy. of State v. Mask and Co. [(1939-40) 67 IA 222 : AIR 1940 PC 105] It has also been held to be equally applicable to enforcement of rights, and has been followed by this Court throughout. The High Court was therefore justified in dismissing the writ petitions in limine." 14. In Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [(1997) 5 SCC 536] B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. (speaking for the majority of the larger Bench) observed: (SCC p. 607, para 77) "77. ... So far as the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 2....