Partly allowed

Suresh Kapilrai Mankad v. Naib Tehaildar Adn Ors.

Bombay HC6 Sept 2007WP/1898/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside an order dated March 28, 2003 liable on petitioners as directors, ruling it violated the principle of audi alteram partem due to lack of show cause notices to them, while leaving the department free to proceed legally against them. No order on costs.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 28th March, 2003 was set aside only qua the petitioner. Respondents are at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

Suresh Kapilrai Mankad Vs Naib Tehaildar Adn Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

 -: 1 :-

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO. 1898 OF 2005

¶5

 Suresh Kapilrai Mankad... ... Petitioners.
 Versus

¶6

 Naib Tehsildar and Others.. ... Respondents.

¶7

 Mr. D.C.Gomes for the Petitioners.
 Mr.S.S.Pakale with Smt. N.V.Masurkar and Mr.Y.S.
 Bhate for Respondent Nos.4 and 5.
 Mr. M.More, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶8

CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. &
DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.

¶9

DATED : 6TH SEPTEMBER, 2007.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

 Learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos.4

¶12

 and 5 has placed on record a copy of the letter dated
 21st August, 2007 written by and on behalf of the
 Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Baroda, to
 the Zonal Joint Director General of Foreign Trade,
 Mumbai. The same reads as under:

¶13

 "Please refer to your letter No.Lit-19/2007-08/
 ZJDGFT/MUM dated 20.8.2007 on the above subject.
 In this connection, I am directed to inform you
 that the SCN for non-fulfillment of Export
 Obligation and SCN under FT (DR) Act, 1992 were
 issued to M/s. Gujarat Inject Ltd., Baroda only.

¶14

 -: 2 :-

¶15

 The said SCNs were not issued/served to any of

¶16

 the directors of the said company."

¶17

 2. In view of the above, it is clear that any of the
 Directors of the Company were neither served with the
 show cause notice nor any action was contemplated
 against them under the show cause notice. Despite
 that the impugned order dated 28th March, 2003 was
 passed fastening liability upon them. The order
 patently is hit by maxim audi alteram partem and is
 liable to be set aside.

¶18

 3. Consequently, we set aside the order dated 28th

¶19

 March, 2003 only qua the petitioner. However, the
 respondents are at liberty to proceed against the
 petitioner but in accordance with law and without
 prejudice to the rights and contentions of the
 petitioner.

¶20

 4. This petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No
 order as to costs.

¶21

 Sd/-

¶22

CHIEFJUSTICE

¶23

 Sd/-

¶24

 -: 3 :-

¶25

DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.

Suresh Kapilrai Mankad v. Naib Tehaildar Adn Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kapilrai Mankad v. Naib Tehaildar Adn 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

Seth Industries Ltd. Vs Woollen Kamgar Sanghtana and Ors.

The Principle,K.I.T. College of Engg.and Anr. Vs Shri Dnyandev D.Jodhalekar and Anr.

R.G.Kulkarni., Vs the Maha. State Co-Op Marketing Fed.Ltd. and Ors.

Bhimshakti Sanghatna Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

rashtriya chemicals and fertilizers Vs rcf employees union

Sanjay Kant Prasad Gupta Vs Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika and 2 Ors.