Allowed

M. J. Abdul Kalam v. Union of India and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC5 Oct 2006WP/1404/2006

Download

Case brief

from the order text

What is this about?

THE HIGH COURT OF

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to challenge the order dated 30th April 2004 by filing an Appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

¶1

-1-

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 O.O.C.J.

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.1404 OF 2006

¶5

 Mr.M.J.Abdul Kalam. .. .. Petitioner
 v/s.

¶6

 Union of India & ors. .. .. Respondents

¶7

 Mr.K.K.Shroff i/by Akshar Laws for petitioner.
 Mr.A.J.Rana, Senior Advocate with Mr.A.S.Rao for
 respondents.

¶8

 -----

¶9

CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.

¶10

DATED : 5th October 2006

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

M. J. Abdul Kalam Vs Union of India and 3 Ors. — Bombay HC (2006) — LawSathi Research

 2. This Petition seeks to challenge the order
 dated 25th November 2005 passed by the Customs
 Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal on an
 Miscellaneous Application filed by the petitioner
 to seek a rectification in the order which the
 Tribunal had passed earlier on 30th April 2004.

¶14

 3. Mr.Shroff appearing for the petitioner has
 drawn our attention to para-3 of the rectification
 application filed in the Tribunal. In this
 paragraph it is stated by the applicant i.e. the
 petitioner herein, that the applicant had raised
 the specific plea before the Tribunal that the
 alleged findings of the Collector in respect of

¶17

 The Tribunal rejected the Miscellaneous
 Application by observing in para-6 that the
 rectification is basically for a mistake apparent
 on the face of the record. In the present case,
 at best, it could be a case of incorrect
 appreciation of evidence against the petitioner
 herein. The Tribunal has, therefore, rejected the
 Miscellaneous Application.

¶18

 4. Mr.Rana, learned Counsel appearing for the
 respondents, submits that the stand taken by the
 petitioner, the applicant therein, is absolutely
 improbable looking to the facts and circumstances
 of the case.

M. J. Abdul Kalam v. Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner of Central Excise Belapur Vs Karmayogi Dyeing Pvt.Ltd.

Ms. Thrity Sam Shroff Vs Mehroo Meherji Vakil and 3 Ors.

Miss. T.S. Shroff Vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

mahendra prasad tiwari Vs the state of maharastra and 7 Ors.

M. J. Abdul Kalam v. Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner of Central Excise Belapur Vs Karmayogi Dyeing Pvt.Ltd.

Ms. Thrity Sam Shroff Vs Mehroo Meherji Vakil and 3 Ors.

Miss. T.S. Shroff Vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

mahendra prasad tiwari Vs the state of maharastra and 7 Ors.

A compact analysis

Dayalal Tejraj Jain Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

M/S.M.R.Corporation Vs Union of India and Ors.