GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD. vs THE UNION OF INDIA

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2008 Supreme(Guj) 184

D.A.MEHTA, D.N.PATEL, J.C.UPADHYAYA
GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:S.N. Soparkar, Senior Advocate, with Aspi M. Kapadia, Advocates.
For the Respondents No. 1 – Union of India:- Gopal Subramanian, Addl. Solicitor General of India, with Harin Raval, Assistant Solicitor General of India, with Rashmin M. Chhaya, Central Government Standing Counsel with Ragenth Basant, Nishant Lalakiya and Param Buch, Advocates.
For the Respondents No. 2 – Petronet Lng Ltd:- Nirupam Nanavaty, Senior Advocate with Maulik Nanavati with N.L. Ganapathi with Dhananjay Shahi, Advocates.
For the Respondents No. 3 – Gail:- Mihir Thakore, Senior Advocate with Rakesh Gupta and Abhishek Mehta for Trivedi & Gupta Advocates.
For the Respondents No. 4–IOCL:- Suresh N. Shelat, Senior Advocate, with Manish Bhatt with Dhara M. Shah, Advocates.
For the Respondents No. 5–BPCL:- Ashish Dholakia with Pathik Acharya, Advocates.
For the Respondents No. 6-(Ratnagiri):- Devang Nanavati with Saurin Mehta and R.H, Parikh, Advocates.
For the Respondents No. 7 – State of Maharashtra:- Nagendra Rai, Senior Counsel, Amit Kapur for Nachiketa S. Joshi, Sudhakar B. Joshi, Apoorva Misra, Ravi Prakash and Varun Agarwal, Advocates.
For the Respondents No. 8-MSEDCL:- Vikas Singh, Additional Solicitor General of India & Senior Counsel, Amit Kapur, for Nachiketa S. Joshi, Sudhakar B. Joshi, Apoorva Misra, Ravi Prakash and Varun Agarwal, Advocates.

COMMON JUDGMENT

D.A. Mehta, J.

1. Someone who thinks logically is a nice contrast to the real world. Normally that is what is required of a judge. While adjudicating a lis a judge is expected not to fall prey to over simplified generalisations made on basis of cited, but inapplicable, precedents. The problem of stereotyping is that it makes particular into the general, often leading to wholly misleading conclusions.

2. This group of petitions has been heard by the Larger Bench constituted in compliance with directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 26.02.2008 in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s) 21397-21399 of 2007 which reads as under:

"Transfer Petition (c) Nos. 513-515 of 2007 and 557-564 of 2007 are taken on Board. These special leave petitions have been filed against the interim order(s) passed by the High Court of Gujarat refusing stay to the petitioners during the pendency of the writ petitions.

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 21397-21399/2007.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as learned Solicitor General and Additional Solicitor Generals and other respective counsel are agreed for disposa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2008 Supreme(Guj) 184

D.A.MEHTA, D.N.PATEL, J.C.UPADHYAYAGUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD. – AppellantVersusTHE UNION OF INDIA – Respondent

Cases Referred (27)

D.A.MEHTA, D.N.PATEL, J.C.UPADHYAYA
GUJARAT STATE PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA – Respondent