Sakunjay Vyas
Published on: March 15, 2022, at 09:51 IST
The Two Judge Bench of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice B.R. Gavai of Supreme Court overturned the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta order that set aside the order of the single-bench and gave various directions, including an injunction.
The Supreme Court recently ruled that an order cannot be treated as a ‘judgment’ unless they contain the traits and trappings of finality.
The Two Judge Bench of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice B.R. Gavai was hearing an appeal against the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta, where the High Court had set aside the order of the single-bench and gave various directions, including an injunction.
After hearing the learned counsel of both the parties, Apex Court decided not to entertain the matter on the facts of the case or the merits of the present matter but whether the appeal filed against the order of the learned Single Judge was tenable?, and whether High Court’s approach was correct?
The Apex court, while deciding the present appeal, stated various findings. The Apex Court stated that the Single Judge Bench, in the present case in its order, made all observations just for the sake of giving an order for to take the proceedings forward and that the order had no trait of finality, it further stated, relying on the case of Shah Babulal Khimji (supra), that an order cannot be treated as a ‘judgment’ unless they contain the traits and trappings of finality. Hence the order of the Single Bench must not be considered as judgment and that the appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court was not tenable.
“…We are therefore of the considered view that the order dated 2nd April 2019 cannot be construed to be a ‘judgment’ within the meaning of Clause 15 of Letters Patent and as such, the appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court was not tenable…they cannot be treated as a ‘judgment’ unless they contain the traits and trappings of finality.”
the Court said.
The apex court further stated that in case of appeal filed against an ad-interim order, then the appellate Court’s approach should be not to interfere but to give a direction for speedy hearing, and the present appeal was indeed filed almost immediately, but the Division Bench took 8-9 months to decide the appeal.
Also, the Division Bench made a statement, “unnecessary prolongation of the litigation and utter wastage of time” which being contrary to their conduct makes it difficult for the Apex Court to understand.
“The perusal of the judgment and order impugned herein would clearly reveal that the counsel for the appellants-defendants had specifically submitted that the appeal was against an adinterim order and therefore, the appellate Court should not interfere by substituting its views but should instead direct a speedy hearing of the interim application…”
the Court said.
As a result, the Apex Court has quashed and set aside the order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta by stating that the order of the Division Bench has ignored the settled principle of law for the Court to do the tests of prima facie case, the balance of convenience and irreparable injury, before granting an injunction and that the approach of the Division Bench of the High Court was unwarranted and uncalled for. And the learned Single Judge is requested to decide the application filed by the respondent as expeditiously as possible.