W.P(C) 4257/2008 and CM No.8285/2008 Page No.1 of 2 THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 09.04.2010 + W.P.(C) 4257/2008 and CM No.8285/2008 PADMINI ENGINEERING P.LTD. … Appellant - versus - GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ... Respondent Advocates who appeared in these cases: For the Petitioner : Mr V.Shekhar, Sr Adv. with Mr Atul Bandhu and Mr V.K. Singh For the Respondent : Mr S.P. Sharma for R-1 and Mr Rajesh Mahna and Mr Ramanand Roy for R-2 CORAM:- HON’BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON’BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. This writ petition has been filed after the petitioner had withdrawn his earlier Writ Petition being No. 50/2008. The withdrawal of the said writ petition is recorded in the order dated 15.01.2008, passed by an earlier Division Bench of this Court. The said order reads as under: “After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw this petition reserving liberty for the petitioner to seek redress in such other proceedings as may be open to it in the law. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty prayed for.” 2. Thereafter, the petitioner went before the Tribunal once again by W.P(C) 4257/2008 and CM No.8285/2008 Page No.2 of 2 way of an application being No.M-51/ATVAT/08-09 in Appeal No.181/STT/04-05 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2000-01 (Central). The said application was filed under Section 151 CPC, requesting for recalling of the orders dated 04.11.2004 and 01.04.2005 passed by the Tribunal earlier. The said orders dated 04.11.2004 and 01.04.2005 were the subject matter of the Writ Petition which was withdrawn on 15.01.2008. 3. The Tribunal, by virtue of the impugned order dated 24.03.2008, has rejected the application as being not maintainable in view of the specific bar contained in Section 43(7) of the Delhi Sales Act, 1975. It is apparent from a reading of the order dated 15.01.2008 passed by the said Division Bench of this Court that the liberty given to the petitioner was to seek redress in “such other proceedings as may be open to it in law”. Such liberty, first of all, did not extend to the filing of another writ petition and secondly, it did not extend to taking proceedings which are not permitted by law. There is a clear bar in Section 43(7) from pursuing any further remedy other than the remedy of seeking a reference under Section 45 of the said Act, which latter remedy the petitioner has not sought at all. In view of the foregoing, the present writ petition is dismissed. BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J V.K. JAIN, J APRIL 09, 2010 bg