M/S BAADER SCHULZE LABORATORIES v. FDC INTERNATIONAL NV/SA
IA/7165/2026 · 2026-09-16
body2016
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2016 DAILYLAW 2650 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2016 DAILYLAW 2650 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
bipin prithiani 1 12-wp-11770.16.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11770 OF 2016 M/s. Baader Schulze Laboratories … Petitioner Versus FDC International NV/SA … Respondent WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7165 OF 2026 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7166 OF 2026 (Not on Board. Taken on Board.) IN WRIT PETITION NO. 11770 OF 2016 ****** Mr. Nitin Thakkar, Senior Advocate, i/by Mr. Swapnil Newaskar, Mr. Bharat Gandhi and Mr. Deep Barot for Petitioner. Ms. Heena Shaikh i/by M/s. M. V. Kini & Co. for Respondent. ******
CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ. DATE : 16th SEPTEMBER 2026 P.C. : . Heard Mr. Thakkar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.
2. The present writ petition was filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, to challenge an order dated 26.02.2016 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. On the face of it, such a writ petition to challenge an order passed in a Summary Suit by a learned Single Judge of this Court on the original side, is not maintainable.
bipin prithiani 2 12-wp-11770.16.doc
3. The record shows that this petition was simply listed before this Court on various dates between 2017 and 2019. Thereafter, the petition could not be listed.
4. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner demonstrated any enthusiasm at all for the past 10 years to get this writ petition listed before the Court for effective consideration and orders. The petition remained pending as it is, without any
order. 5. In this backdrop, the petitioner has now moved an application dated 27.08.2026 in the writ petition, praying for converting the writ petition into an appropriate appeal from order and to permit the petitioner to carry out necessary and consequential amendments. The petitioner has also moved an application dated 24.08.2026, seeking stay of further proceedings in Commercial Summary Suit No. 74 of 2024 before the City Civil Court, till the final hearing and disposal of the writ petition. It is to be noted that the summary suit originally filed before this Court on the original side, with enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction stood transferred to the City Civil Court. 6. The learned counsel appearing for respondent has vehemently opposed the prayers made in these applications. It is submitted that this Court ought not to consider the prayer for conversion of the writ petition into appeal from order. 7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Nawab
bipin prithiani 3 12-wp-11770.16.doc Shaqafath Ali Khan & Ors. vs. Nawad Imdad Jah Bahadur & Ors., (2009) 5 SCC 162, to contend that this Court always retains the inherent power to permit such conversion in the interest of justice. It is submitted that the contents of the writ petition would show that it was drafted as an appeal, but unfortunately, the then Advocate appears to have titled the proceedings as a writ petition instead of an appeal. On this basis, it was submitted that this Court may consider allowing the application for converting the present writ petition into an appeal. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and we have also considered the aforesaid judgment in the case of Nawab Shaqafath Ali Khan & Ors. vs. Nawad Imdad Jah Bahadur & Ors. (supra). In paragraph 48 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court has observed that in an appropriate case, the High Court can exercise its inherent power to allow conversion of a writ petition into an appeal or a revision, depending on the facts and circumstances of a case. 9. The aforesaid observation of the Supreme Court was made in the facts of the case being considered therein. In any case, the Supreme Court has clearly observed that such inherent power could be exercised in an appropriate case when exercise of such power/jurisdiction is made out. 10.
We have considered the present petition and as noted hereinabove, after the same was filed in the year 2016, although it appears to have been listed before this Court on certain dates,
bipin prithiani 4 12-wp-11770.16.doc when it could not be taken up for consideration due to paucity of time, we do not find any effort being made by the petitioner to specifically have this petition mentioned and listed for effective
consideration and orders. We have gathered an impression that the petitioner kept this petition filed and pending for a period of 10 years. Even if the period of 2 and ½ years pertaining to covid-19 pandemic is taken into consideration, the petitioner displayed complete absence of enthusiasm to get this petition listed for at least 7½ to 8 years.
11. It appears that when the proceedings before the City Civil Court in the transferred suit have reached at an advanced stage, the present application has been filed seeking to invoke inherent power of this Court, for converting the writ petition into appeal from order. We are not convinced that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner has been able to make out a case for exercising such inherent power and jurisdiction.
12. In view of the above, Interim Application No. 7166 of 2026, seeking conversion of the writ petition into appeal from order, is dismissed.
13. We also find that writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenging an order of learned Single Judge passed on the original side of this Court, cannot be entertained and that such an impugned order could be assailed only by filing an appropriate appeal.
bipin prithiani 5 12-wp-11770.16.doc
14. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
15. All Pending other interim applications are also disposed of.
16. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and the rights and contentions of the parties are kept open.
17. Needless to say, the petitioner would be at liberty to institute such proceedings, as available in law, to challenge the order dated 26.02.2016 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.) BIPIN DHARMENDER PRITHIANI Digitally signed by BIPIN DHARMENDER PRITHIANI Date: 2026.09.17 10:18:11 +0530