Quashed

Shinobu Nakajo and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Sept 2005WP/5318/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, in three writ petitions, quashed the orders of the Settlement Commission. The bench held that the Commission has jurisdiction and the impugned order was liable to be quashed and remitted back to the Commission for decision in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the orders of the Settlement Commission and remitted the matter back to the Commission for a decision within 4 months.

Shinobu Nakajo and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE.

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 5316 OF 2005.

¶4

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.

¶5

CORAM: V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. DATED: 14.9.2005. P.C.:

¶6

. Heard.

¶7

. Rule returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.

¶8

These petitions are directed

¶9

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.

¶10

.	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

¶11

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.

¶12

. 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.

¶13

(J.P. DEVADHAR,J.) ( V.C.DAGA,J.)

Shinobu Nakajo and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shinobu Nakajo and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The C.I.T. Mumbai City - Xxvi, Mumbai Vs Shri Vikram M. Goradia

The Commissioner of Income Tax,City-Xiii, Mumbai. Vs S.R.Jesrani

The Commissioner of Income Tax,City-Xiii, Bombay. Vs M.R.Jesrani

Toshiro Shimono and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S. Nec Corporation and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Parvathi Ganga Sailoo Vs Union of India and Ors.