Drs Warehouse (North) Private ... vs Office Of Sub Registrar
2023 Latest Caselaw 2473 Guj

     C/SCA/5155/2023                          ORDER DATED: 23/03/2023




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5155 of 2023

=============================================
               DRS WAREHOUSE (NORTH) PRIVATE LIMITED
                              Versus
                     OFFICE OF SUB REGISTRAR
=============================================
Appearance:
MR HARSH N PAREKH(6951) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
PRIYAL M PARIKH(7593) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
 for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
=============================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI

                          Date : 23/03/2023

                            ORAL ORDER

1. By way of present writ application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant herein has prayed that the Tribunal be directed to hear and decide the I.A. 411 of 2018 in C.P.(I.B.) No.89 of 2017, duly produced at Annexure - E, expeditiously. It is also prayed to quash the letter dated 10.04.2017 issued by the respondent No.2 - Enforcement Directorate to the Sub Registrar, duly produced at Annexure - A.

2. Heard Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned advocate with Ms. Priyal M. Parikh, learned advocate appearing for the writ applicant.

3. Considering the prayers as prayed for, in view of this Court, the writ applicant herein is the applicant before the Tribunal and the proceedings at large are pending before the Tribunal. Considering the said aspect, it is open for the writ

C/SCA/5155/2023 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2023

applicant herein to approach the Tribunal and pray for the reliefs as applicable under the law.

4. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S Garment Craft vs Prakash Chand Goel, reported in AIR 2022 SC 422, wherein it is observed as under:

"18. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. has observed:-

"6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the

C/SCA/5155/2023 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2023

finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to."

5. In view of above, this Court is not inclined to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by exercising supervisory jurisdiction.

6. Mr. Vakil, learned advocate appearing for the writ applicant during the course of hearing, submitted that the said application is coming up for hearing on 29.03.2023. On that day i.e. 29.03.2023, it is open for the writ applicant to substantiate the grievance as raised in the present writ application.

7. With the aforesaid, the present writ application is disposed of.

(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)

NEHA