1 wp1951.11.sxw ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1951 OF 2011 Olive Healthcare. ..Petitioner Vs. Lannett Company Inc. & Anr. ..Respondents. Dr. Virendra Tulzapurkar, Sr.Counsel with Sandeep Parikh, advocate i/b. Santosh Raje, advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.Pravin Samdani, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Rajendra Bora and Shailesh Shukla, advocate i/b. AZB & Partners, advocate for Respondent No. 1. CORAM : B.R.GAVAI, J. DATE : MARCH 10, 2011. P.C. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By the present Petition, the Petitioners challenge the order dated 27th January, 2010 passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Daman thereby stating in the operative order that the application below Exh. 19 is allowed and further directing to approach proper forum, i.e. the Hon'ble District Court for grant of interim relief/measures. 2 wp1951.11.sxw 3. Heard Shri Tulzapurkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and Shri Samdani, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1. Since no relief is claimed as against the rest of respondents, requirement of notice of rule on the rest of the respondents is waived. 4 Undisputed facts giving rise to the present Petition are as under: There is a dispute between the Petitioners and Respondent No.1 regarding commercial contract. Undisputedly, the Respondents herein have invoked the arbitration clause and filed the arbitration proceedings in the United States of America. The Petitioners have filed their written statement and their counter claim in the proceedings lodged in the United States of America. The Petitioners have thereafter, filed present suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Daman for various reliefs including the relief for declaration that the arbitration proceedings pending in the United States of America are null and void. In the said proceedings, an application has also been filed by the present Petitioners 3 wp1951.11.sxw below Exh. 5 claiming for interim injunction against the Defendant No.1 restraining him from initiating any arbitration proceedings against the Petitioners herein in United States of America. On being noticed, the Respondent No.1 appeared before the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Daman and filed an application under provisions of section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act(hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), which requires the judicial authority when seized of an action in a matter in respect of the parties have made an agreement referred to in Section 44, to be referred to an arbitration on the request being made by either parties. The application also came to be filed by the Respondent herein below Exh. 19 praying therein that the issues raised in the application under section 45 of the Act go to the root of the matter and therefore, it is necessary that the said application needs to be decided first. The said application was resisted by the present Petitioners. Learned Judge after referring certain provisions of Section 45, Section8 and Section 9 of the said Act has passed following operative order. “(1) The application Exh.19 is allowed. (2) The plaintiff is directed to approach the proper forum i.e. the Hon’ble District Court for grant of interim 4 wp1951.11.sxw relief/measure. (3) Pronounced in open Court.” 5 From perusal of the application below Exh. 19, it would be clearly seen that the learned Judge has been called upon to decide as to whether the application filed by the Respondent No.1 herein under the provisions of section 45 of the said Act needs to be decided first and prior to the other application in the said proceedings. The perusal of the impugned order would reveal that apart from reproduction of section 45 there is no reason given by the learned Judge as to why the application below Exh. 19 needs to be allowed. It is further to be noted that the question as to whether the learned Judge could have decided the application for interim relief below Exh. 5 or not was also not an issue in the application below Exh. 19. In that view of the matter, I find that the learned Judge was not called upon to decide that question. 6 By now, it is well settled principle of law that all judicial orders are required to be speaking orders. Needless to state that unless reasons are given in the order in support of the conclusion arrived at, it is neither 5 wp1951.11.sxw possible for the parties to appreciate what weighed with the Learned Judge in passing the order and equally not possible for any court exercising the powers of judicial review to examine the correctness or otherwise of the said oder. In that view of the matter, the Petition deserves to be allowed. 7 The impugned order dated 27 th January, 2011 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned trial Judge for deciding the application below Exh.19 i.e. "as to whether the application filed by the Respondent No.1 herein under provision of section 45 of the said Act needs to be decided prior to the other application or not”. The learned Trial Judge would decide the said application after hearing the parties. Needless to state that the learned Judge would give reasons for whatever conclusion arrived at. 8 Petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. 9 Needless to state that the Court has not considered the matter on 6 wp1951.11.sxw its merits and the Petition is allowed on the grounds, namely, firstly, the learned Judge has not given reasons in support of his order and secondly, the learned Judge has travelled beyond the scope of the application below Exh. 19. 10 On the above terms, the Rule is made absolute. [ B.R.GAVAI, J ]