Ravi S. Dhavan and V.P. Goel, JJ. - (1.) This matter had been heard on 16.2.1999. A final order had been passed relegating the petitioners to an alternative remedy. But learned Counsel for petitioners Mr. Ashok Bhushan made a request to the Court that perhaps the alternative remedy relegated is not an alternative remedy, and he may be permitted to submit further, notwithstanding the order of 16.2.1999. Suffice it to say that the order of 16.2.1999 was virtually an order by consent to enable the petitioner to an alternative remedy under Section 41, as suggested.
(2.) Permission to submit further was granted and, in the circumstances, the matter has been put up today.
(3.) Now it has been urged, regard being had to the circumstances, that Section 15 has been an amendment by insertion of clause (9), there is no recourse the petitioner can take to, and the order impugned is a final order. Thus, the contention is that even the remedy under sub-section (3) of Section 41 is not available. The Court has considered the submissions as have been made today.;