REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2915 OF 2011

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.9553 of 2010)

M/s. Kunj Aluminium Private Limited

..

Appellant (s)

-versus-

M/s. Koninklijke Phillips Electronics NV ..

Respondents (s)

J U D G M E N T

Markandey Katju, J.

1.

Leave granted.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3.

This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the

Delhi High Court dated 30.11.2009 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.613

of 2009. Without going into the merits of the controversy we find that the

impugned judgment of the Division Bench dated 30.11.2009 gives no

reasons.

1

4.

The impugned judgment of the Division Bench only states :

“5.

We have heard Mr. Arvind Nigam, learned

Senior counsel appearing for the appellant at length. We

have also perused the documents on records as well as

the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge.

6.

We are of the considered view that the

impugned order suffers from no legal infirmity which

warrants interference by way of appeal.”

5.

In our opinion this was not the way to dispose off an appeal. The

impugned order is too cryptive. There should have been at least a brief

discussion of facts and some reasons. It has been held by this Court that

even an order of affirmance must give some reasons, even if brief vide

Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya

Gramin Bank vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney & Ors. JT 2009(4) SC 519.

Hence we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the

Division Bench for a fresh hearing in accordance with law, expeditiously.

6.

Appeal is allowed. No costs.

……………………………………J.

[MARKANDEY KATJU]

……………………………………J.

[GYAN SUDHA MISRA]

NEW DELHI;

APRIL 04, 2011

2