M/S BAADER SCHULZE LABORATORIESversusFDC INTERNATIONAL NV/SA

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           Digitally signed by BIPIN
                  DHARMENDER PRITHIANI
  DHARMENDER      Date: 2026.09.17 10:18:11
  PRITHIANI       +0530