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