The High Court rejected a writ petition challenging the dismissal of an appeal against a penalty of Rs.70 lakhs. The court held that the petitioner failed to establish financial difficulty or undue hardship as required by statutory provisions.
The writ petition was rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2419 OF 2006
Sunil M. Shah .... Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India & Ors. .... Respondents
Shri Tushar Shah for the Petitioner.
None for the Respondents.
CORAM: R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR &
D.G. KARNIK, JJ.
DATED: APRIL 25, 2007
P.C:
The authority has dismissed the appeal on the
ground that neither the case of any financial difficulty
nor that of undue hardship has been made out in relation
to the penalty of Rs.70 lakhs as is otherwise required
to be established in terms of the statutory provisions.
The impugned order having been passed in exercise of the
statutory powers under the statutory provisions and
there is clear failure on the part of the petitioner to
comply with the requirement of the statutory provisions,
we do not find any case having been made out for
interference in writ jurisdiction. Hence the petition
is rejected.
(D.G.Karnik, J.) (R.M.S.Khandeparkar, J.)
sjs/a7wp2419.6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there is a case for interference in writ jurisdiction where the authority dismissed an appeal for failure to establish financial difficulty or undue hardship regarding a penalty.
Sunil M. Shah
Union of India
R.M.S. Khandeparkar
D.G. Karnik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court