Three writ petitions challenging the order of the Settlement Commission were disposed of by quashing the impugned orders and remitting the matters back to the Commission for decision in accordance with law.
Impugned orders of the Settlement Commission are quashed and matters are remitted back for decision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5316 OF 2005.
Toshibo Shimono anr. .. Petitioners. vs. Union of India & ors. .. Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5317 OF 2005. N.E.C. Corporation & anr. .. Petitioner. vs. Union of India & ors. .. Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5318 OF 2005. Shinobu Nakajo & anr. .. Petitioners. vs. Union of India & ors. .. Respondents. ------------------------------------------------------------Office Notes,Office : Memoranda of Coram, : Court’s or Judge’s orders appearnaces,Courts’s : orders or directions : and Registrar’s orders. : -----------------------------------------------------------Shri J.G. Bhatt, Senior Counsel with Amit Tambe i/b Trilgel for the petitioners. Shri B.M. Chaterjee and Ms. A.M. Malhotra i/b Dr. T.C. Kaushik for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
CORAM: V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. DATED: 14.9.2005. P.C.:
. Heard.
. Rule returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.
These petitions are directed
| against | the ord |
er of |
the | Se | ttlement | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Commission | dated | 19th | J | anuary | 2005 | |
| wherein | the | Settlement | Co | mmissi | on | relied |
| upon | a judgment |
of the |
Mad | ras | High | Court |
| in the |
case |
of Commis |
sioner | of | Customs | |
| (AIR) | Chennai | vs. Cu |
stoms | and | Central | |
| Excise | Settleme | nt Commi |
ssion | re | ported | in |
| 2002 (1 |
39) ELT |
512 an |
d | came | to | the |
| conclusion | that | the Comm |
ission | has | no | |
| jurisdiction | to | adjudicate | upon | the | ||
| application | made by | the | ||||
| petitioner-app | licant. |
| . | This Court, in | similar fac | ts of | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| the case, in Wri |
t Petition |
No.115 | of | 2004 |
| with other pe |
titions, had |
occ | asion | to |
| consider the issue |
of ju |
risdiction | of | the |
| Settlement Commission |
and |
decide | the | same |
| in the light of |
the law |
laid do |
wn by |
the |
| Madras High Court. |
The | Division | Bench | of |
| this Court did |
not agree |
with | the | view |
| taken by the |
Madras High |
Court |
and | was |
| pleased to hold |
that |
the | Set | tlement |
| Commission has |
jurisdiction | to | deal | with |
| the matters for |
the reaso |
ns reco |
rded | in |
| the said judgment. |
In |
view | of | the |
| judgment of the |
Division |
Bench | referred | |
| to hereinabove, |
both the |
parties | agreed |
| that the |
impugned order |
of | the | Settlement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Commission | is liable to |
be | quashed | and |
| set aside |
and matters |
are | liable to |
be |
| remitted | back to |
the | Settlement | |
| Commission | for decision |
in | accordance | |
| with law. |
We hope |
that | the | Settlement |
| Commission | shall decide |
the | matters | as |
| expeditiously | as possible |
at |
any |
rate, |
| within 4 months | from the date of receipt | |||
| of this order. |
. Petitions stand disposed of in terms of this order. Rule in each of these petitions is partly made absolute with no order as to costs.
(J.P. DEVADHAR,J.) ( V.C.DAGA,J.)
Toshibo Shimono and anr.
N.E.C. Corporation and anr.
Shinobu Nakajo and anr.
Union of India
V.C.Daga
J.P.Devadhar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
