Allowed

Shri Vijay M. Bhansali v. Union of India and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC22 Feb 2007WP/167/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Bombay, Bombay Bench, directed the respondents to implement the CESTAT order dated 26/9/2006 regarding clearance of goods within four weeks, subject to their failing to obtain a stay in a proposed appeal due to gross delay.

What did the court decide?

Direct the respondents to implement the CESTAT order dated 26/9/2006 within four weeks if an appeal is not stayed.

Shri Vijay M. Bhansali Vs Union of India and 2 Ors. — Customs and Excise | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 ORDINARYORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITON NO.167 OF 2007

¶4

 Shri Vijay M. Bhansali ..Petitioner.

¶5

 V/s.

¶6

 Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents.

¶7

 Mr.Anil Balani with Ms.Shilpa Balani for petitioner.

¶8

 Mr.A.S. Rao for respondents.

¶9

CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND
 J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.

¶10

DATED : 22ND FEBRUARY, 2007.
P.C. :-

¶11

 . Rule, returnable forthwith. The learned

¶12

 counsel for the respondents waives service. By consent
 of the parties, taken up for final hearing.

¶13

 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶14

 and the respondents. By this petition, the petitioner
 is seeking implementation of the order of the CESTAT
 dated 26th September, 2006. By the said order, the
 Tribunal has directed the clearance of the goods as
 they have been imported without any mutilation. The
 learned counsel for the respondents conceded that the
 respondents received the certified copy of the order on
 12th October, 2006. Thereafter, they applied to the

¶15

 - = : 2 : = -

¶16

 Law Ministry for sanction for filing the appeal. The
 Law Ministry vide letter dated 10/2/2007 has
 communicated to the respondents that this is not a fit
 case to file an appeal. In spite of the same, no
 appeal has been filed. Today, the learned counsel for
 the respondents states that they have received
 instructions to file an appeal in the above matter.
 Prima facie we are of the view that there is a gross
 delay in obtaining stay, in the above matter.

¶17

 3. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances,

¶18

 we direct the respaondents to implement the order
 passed by the CESTAT on 26/9/2006 within a period of 4
 weeks from today in the event the respondents fail to
 obtain a stay in the appeal which they propose to file.

¶19

 4. Writ petition stands disposed of

¶20

 accordingly.

¶21

(DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)

¶22

 (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)

Shri Vijay M. Bhansali v. Union of India and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Vijay M. Bhansali v. 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

Messrs. Siddhant Chemicals and Anr. Vs Union of India and Anr.

S.P.Fabricators Pvt.Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Jindal Drugs Limited Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Ma Care Vs the Union of India and Orws.

M/S. Turakhia Ferromet Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Parekh Platinum Ltd. and Anr. Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.