Allowed

Vipor Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. the Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Sept 2005WP/6266/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a non-speaking order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Customs, the High Court held that the order violated natural justice by being passed without hearing the petitioner and without stating reasons. The court quashed the order and remanded it for rehearing within six weeks. The settlement notice remains in abeyance.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 3rd March, 2005 is quashed, set aside, and remanded back to the authority to hear the matter within six weeks.

Vipor Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Union of India and Ors. — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

 -= : 1 : =-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 WRIT PETITON NO.6266 OF 2005

¶5

 Vipor Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. ..Petitioner.

¶6

 V/s.

¶7

 The Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents.

¶8

 Mr.Prakash Shah i/b. PDS Legal for petitioner.

¶9

 Mr.P.S.Jetly with C.J.Joy for respondents.

¶10

CORAM : V.C. DAGA AND
 J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 21ST SEPTEMBER, 2005.

¶11

P.C. :-

¶12

 1. Rule, returnable forthwith.

¶13

 2. Mr.Jetly waives service for the respondents.

¶14

 3. Heard finally with the consent of the

¶15

 parties. Perused petition with relevant documents.

¶16

 4. The impugned order dated 3rd March, 2005

¶17

 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Customs, Chief
 Commissioner’s office, Mumbai-1 is a non speaking
 order. The order does not convey the reasons in
 support of the view taken. It is also not in dispute
 that the impugned order has been passed without hearing
 the petitioner. Thus the impugned order is clearly in
 breach of principles of natural justice. Needless to
 mention that the order must be self explanatory and
 should not keep the higher Court guessing for the
 reasons. Reasons provide vital link between conclusion
 and evidence. That vital link is a safeguard against

¶18

 -= : 2 : =-

¶19

 arbitrariness and prejudice. It is a tool for judging
 the validity of the order.

¶20

 5. It needs no emphasise that whenever the
 order is to entail civil consequences, then, it is all
 the more necessary to hear the party and pass the
 reasoned order. Thus, on both counts the impugned
 order suffers from breach of principles of natural
 justice, as such it needs to be set aside.

¶21

 6. In the result, the impugned order is quashed
 and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the
 authority concerned with directions to hear the matter
 as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a
 period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of order.
 The petitioner undertakes to communicate this order and
 further undertakes to appear before the concerned
 authority on 3rd October, 2005. On this date or any
 other suitable date convenient to the adjudicating
 authority, matter may be heard and disposed of in

¶22

 accordance with law.

¶23

 7. Needless to mention that the notice issued

¶24

 under section 72(2) of the Customs Act, 1962
 incorporated at Exhibits A-1, Y-2 & Y-3 shall remain in
 abeyance until the said matter is adjudicated upon by
 the concerned authority on its own merits. All rival
 contentions are kept open.

¶25

 8. Rule is made absolute in terms of this order
 with no order as to costs.

¶26

(V.C. DAGA, J.)

¶27

 -= : 3 : =-

¶28

 (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)

Vipor Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipor Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. the 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. S.R. Nagpal and Sons (India) Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ellora Construction Sole Proprietory Firm Vs M.B. Kodnani Chief Engineer and Ors.

Madankumar Babulal Sanghvi and Ors. Vs the Union of India and Anr.

Adf Foods Ltd. and Ors. Vs Kishore H. Thakkar and Anr.

The Commissioner of Central Excise Vs M/S Tarapur Coating and Adhesives Ltd.

The Commissione of Central Excise,Mumbai-Iii Vs M/S Empire Industries