Parekh Platinum Ltd. and Anr. v. the Union of India and 2 Ors.
Bombay HCWP/4/2007
Case brief
AI extract
What is this about?
The Bombay High Court scheduled for final hearing a writ petition challenging a CESTAT order requiring a 25% bank guarantee as pre-deposit. The Court found an arguable issue regarding the Tribunal's consideration of the limitation period and remanded the matter to the Tribunal to waive the pre-deposit.
What the court decided
AI extract
¶1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
¶2
ORDINARYORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
¶3
WRIT PETITON NO.4 OF 2007
¶4
Parekh Platinum Ltd. & Anr. ..Petitioners.
¶5
V/s.
¶6
The Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents.
¶7
Mr.Sridharan with T.Vishavanathan with Jitendra Motwani
i/b. PDS Legal for petitioners.
¶8
Mr.R.Ashokan with M.I.Sethna, senior counsel for
respondents.
¶9
CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
¶10
DATED : 22ND FEBRUARY, 2007.
P.C. :-
¶11
Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of
¶12
the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
AI extract
Whether it is a fit case to waive the pre-deposit directed by the CESTAT vide the impugned order.
Whether the Tribunal has properly considered the issue of extended period of limitation when the respondent was aware of the facts in 1998.
Parties & counsel
AI extract
- petitioner
Parekh Platinum Ltd. & Anr.
- respondent
The Union of India & Ors.
Coram
AI extract
S. Radhakrishnan
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court