Dismissed

Kirtikumar Pananlal Shah v. 1. Union of India and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC10 Mar 2006WP/548/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a Tribunal's order requiring a 10% pre-deposit, the High Court held that the Tribunal did record reasons by noting the petitioner's financial inability. The petition was dismissed prematurely save for an indulgence extending the pre-deposit deadline for two months.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed in limine; pre-deposit time extended by two months as indulgence.

Kirtikumar Pananlal Shah Vs 1. Union of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO.548 OF 2006

¶4

 Kiritkumar Ramanlal Shah .. Petitioner.
 V/s.

¶5

 Union of India & Others .. Respondents.

¶6

 Ms.Sonal Gokhale i/b. M/s.Akshar Laws for the
 petitioner.

¶7

 Mr.A.S. Rao for the respondents.

¶8

 CORAM : R.M. LODHA &
 J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.

¶9

 DATED : 10TH MARCH, 2006.
P.C. :

¶10

 Heard Ms.Sonal Gokhale, the learned counsel
 for the petitioner.

¶11

 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the
 petitioner is that the Tribunal without giving any
 reason ordered pre-deposit of 10% of the amount of
 penalty. The learned counsel would submit that the
 petitioner does not have financial position to make
 pre-deposit and that is what was contended before the
 Tribunal as well. But this aspect was not adverted
 to by the Tribunal in the right perspective.

¶12

 3. We are unable to accept the submissions of

¶13

 the learned counsel. Before the Tribunal, the
 petitioner (appellant therein) did set up a case that
 he was not in a financial position to make the

¶14

¶15

 pre-deposit. The Tribunal did consider this aspect
 and held that the record did not disclose actual
 position of the financial conditions of the appellant
 (petitioner herein). In the circumstances, it cannot
 be said that the Tribunal recorded no reason for
 directing the petitioner to deposit 10% of the amount
 of penalty as a condition precedent for entertaining
 the appeal. Speaking order does not mean that there
 must be detailed and elaborate reasons. Rather it
 means the order must disclose the reason that weighed
 in the mind of the quasi judicial authority in
 passing the order. The impugned order does disclose
 the reason as to why the contention of the appellant
 that he was not in a financial position to make
 pre-deposit was not accepted.

¶16

 4. The writ petition does not deserves to be
 admitted and is dismissed in limine.

¶17

 5. By way of indulgance in the peculiar facts
 and circumstances of the case, we extend the time of
 pre-deposit for a further period of two months from
 today.

¶18

 (R.M. LODHA, J.)

¶19

¶20

 (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)

Kirtikumar Pananlal Shah v. 1. Union of India and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kirtikumar Pananlal Shah v. 1. Union of India and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

m/s shubhada polymers products p.ltd Vs the union of india and Anr.

M/S. Hickoson and Dadajee Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

M/S.Sudhir Diamonds Vs Union of India and Anr.

Praful M.Vora Vs Union of India and Ors.

Kirtikumar Pananlal Shah Vs 1. Union of India and 2 Ors.

M/S.Uma Shankar Khandel- Wal and Co. Vs Union of India and Ors.