Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court disposed of two writ petitions, WP No.12186 of 2013 filed by Ceat Ltd. and WP No.1799 of 2015 filed by Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd., both challenging actions by the Union of India and other respondents. The court noted that it was common ground between the parties that the facts and legal issues in these petitions were identical to those in Writ Petition No.37 of 2014 (Balkrishna Industries Ltd. v. Union of India). The parties agreed that the decision in that lead case would govern the outcome of the present petitions. On the same day, the court pronounced its judgment in the lead case, dismissing it. Consequently, for the reasons set out in that judgment, the court dismissed both writ petitions. However, considering the facts and circumstances, the court ordered that the parties bear their own costs. The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Justices S.C. Dharmadhikari and B.P. Colabawalla, with the latter authoring the judgment. The petitions were reserved on 1st December 2015 and pronounced on 23rd December 2015.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Common Ground - Similar Facts and Law - The court noted that it was common ground between the parties that the facts and law in these petitions were similar to those in Writ Petition No.37 of 2014 (Balkrishna Industries Ltd. v. Union of India) and that the decision in that case would govern the outcome. (Para 2)
B) Writ Jurisdiction - Dismissal Following Lead Case - The court dismissed these writ petitions for the same reasons as set out in its judgment in Writ Petition No.37 of 2014, which was also dismissed on the same day. Parties were directed to bear their own costs. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the facts and law in these writ petitions are similar to those in Writ Petition No.37 of 2014 (Balkrishna Industries Ltd. v. Union of India) and whether the decision therein governs the outcome of these petitions.
Final Decision
Rule discharged and writ petitions dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.
Law Points
- Common ground
- similar facts and law
- decision in lead case governs outcome
- dismissal with no costs
Case Details
Writ Petition No.12186 of 2013 and Writ Petition No.1799 of 2015
S.C. Dharmadhikari, B.P. Colabawalla
Mr V. Sridharan, Sr. Counsel with Mr Prakash Shah, Mr Jas Sanghavi, Ms Sarah Maay Mathew and Ms Shilpi i/b M/s PDS Legal for Petitioners; Mr Pradeep S. Jetly for Respondents in WP No.12186 of 2013 and for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in WP No.1799 of 2015; Mr S.P. Bharti for Respondent No.3 in WP No.1799 of 2015
Ceat Ltd. (WP12186/2013); Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. (WP1799/2015)
The Union of India and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging actions of the Union of India and others.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought relief against the respondents, the nature of which is not specified in the judgment but is similar to that in Balkrishna Industries Ltd. case.
Filing Reason
The petitioners challenged certain actions of the respondents, with facts and law similar to those in Writ Petition No.37 of 2014.
Previous Decisions
Writ Petition No.37 of 2014 (Balkrishna Industries Ltd. v. Union of India) was dismissed by the same court on the same day, and the present petitions were dismissed following that decision.
Issues
Whether the facts and law in these writ petitions are similar to those in Writ Petition No.37 of 2014.
Whether the decision in Writ Petition No.37 of 2014 governs the outcome of these petitions.
Submissions/Arguments
It was common ground between the parties that the facts and law are similar to Writ Petition No.37 of 2014.
The parties agreed that the decision in the lead case would govern the outcome.
Ratio Decidendi
Where parties agree that facts and law in a case are similar to a lead case, the decision in the lead case governs the outcome, and the petitions are dismissed accordingly.
Judgment Excerpts
It is common ground before us that the facts and law to be considered in these Writ Petitions are similar to Writ Petition No.37 of 2014 (Balkrishna Industries Ltd. v/s Union of India and others).
It is also common ground that the decision in Writ Petition No.37 of 2014 would govern the outcome of these Writ Petitions.
By our judgment and order pronounced today in Writ Petition No.37 of 2014, we have dismissed the said Writ Petition. Accordingly and for the reasons set out in our judgment in Writ Petition No.37 of 2014, in these Petitions also rule is discharged and the above Writ Petitions are dismissed.
Procedural History
Writ Petitions filed in 2013 and 2015. Heard on 1st December 2015 and judgment pronounced on 23rd December 2015. Parties agreed that facts and law are similar to WP No.37 of 2014, which was dismissed on the same day.
