IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 2374 OF 2008 National Aviation Company of India Limited ... Petitioner Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India ... Respondents Mr. Farhan Dubash i/by Mr. Y.R. Shah for the petitioner. Mr. V.Y. Sanglikar for the respondents. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J., & S.A. BOBDE , J. DATE : 7TH OCTOBER , 2008 P.C.: We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner by way of this writ petition questions the legality and correctness of the orders dated 4th October, 2007 and 23rd September, 2008. By the first order, the Estate Officer rejected the application filed by the petitioner directing that the dispute between two public sector undertakings ought to be referred to the High Power Committee in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court while by the later order, the Estate Officer directed the present petitioner to conclude the cross-examination within 15 minutes otherwise, it will be deemed to be closed. As far as first order is concerned, it is a settled principle of law that the proceedings before the Estate Officer are summary proceedings and he is well within his right to control the proceedings according to the procedure prescribed by him. However, the same has to be in consonance with law. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, AIR 1997 SC 2590 and the Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Life Insurance Corporation Ltd., decided on 30th October, 2007, we are unable to see any error of jurisdiction or otherwise in the order dated 4th October, 2007. Writ petition vis-a-vis that order is dismissed. 2. Coming to the order dated September 23, 2008, it appears that the witness was under cross-examination for considerable length of time. Therefore, the Estate Officer passed the following order: “E.O. Questions are not allowed on this premises as we are in hearing of Jeevan Jyot premises. Advocate for Opponent is directed to close the witness within 15 minutes. Advocate for Opponent submits that putting a time restriction on the cross-examination of the present witness is a fetter on cross-examination itself and in these circumstances it is not possible for him to conduct the further hearing i the present proceedings. He has therefore requested that some time be given to enable him to seek discharge as Air India's Advocate in the present proceedings and to enable Air India to make alternate arrangements. E.O. Advocate of Opponent is directed to ask relevant questions and hence the time frame. 3. The said direction has been challenged on the ground that the petitioner is not being provided fair opportunity of cross-examining the witness and the order is violative of principle of natural justice. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents contend that the length of cross-examining of the witness shows that the petitioner was asking irrelevant questions which persuaded the Estate Officer to pass the said direction. 4. We have no hesitation to observe the language of the order is not in consonance with the settled principles of law. If the question was asked, the Estate Officer should have recorded the said question for the purpose of record produced before us. Not a single question was allowed by the Estate Officer. In such a situation, in our opinion, he should not have passed such order for closing the cross- examination of the witness within 15 minutes. While disposing of this petition at this stage itself, we expect that Estate Officer conducts the proceedings in accordance with law and the parties should fully cooperate the Estate Officer in conducting the proceedings. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE, J.