Allowed

M/S. Ram Remedies Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Aug 2007WP/5919/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Bombay Writ Petition set aside orders dismissing an appeal and application for waiver of pre-deposit due to non-service and lack of compliance. The Court directed the Tribunal to re-hear the application on merits and prevent creation of third-party rights pending disposal.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of 26/3/2007 and orders dismissing appeal and waiver application set aside; Tribunal directed to re-hear application on merits; parties directed to create no third-party rights until di

M/S. Ram Remedies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors. — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO. 5919 OF 2007

¶5

 M/s Ram Remedies Pvt. Ltd. .... Petitioners

¶6

Vs.

¶7

 Union of India & Ors. .... Respondents

¶8

 Mr. Madhur R. Baya for the Petitioners
 Mr. A.S. Rao for the Respondents.

¶9

CORAM : F.I. REBELLO, &
 J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.

¶10

 DATE : 14TH AUGUST, 2007
 P.C.

¶11

 1) Rule. Heard learned counsel for the
 parties.

¶12

 2) The Petitioners had preferred an appeal

¶13

 before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax
 Appellate Tribunal. It is the case of the
 petitioners that thereafter by a letter dated 7th
 October 2004 addressed to the Registry of the
 Tribunal, they had informed the change in the
 address for communication. It appears that the
 notice was issued at the address of one of the

¶14

 Directors who had ceased to be a Director. An
 order came to be passed directing the petitioners

¶15

¶16

 herein to make pre-deposit of Rs. 2 Crores and
 Director, S.M. Kankaria to make the pre-deposit of
 Rs.1 Lac within the time stipulated therein.

¶17

 3) There was non-compliance to the order.
 Thereafter the appeal was disposed on 7/3/2003 for
 want of non-compliance of Section 35(F) of the
 Central Excise Act, 1944. It is the case of the
 petitioners that they were not aware of the order
 until they were informed of the dismissal of the
 Appeal by the erstwhile Director.

¶18

 4) Thereafter they applied for recalling the
 order of pre-deposit and the order of dismissal.
 That came to be dismissed by the impugned order
 dated 26/03/2007. The learned Tribunal came to
 conclusion that no ground had been made out for
 modification and as there was no compliance with
 the pre-deposit order, application was dismissed.
 One of the aspects considered by the learned
 Tribunal was that the Director was duly represented
 by its counsel.

¶19

 5) At the hearing of this petition on behalf
 of the petitioner, their learned counsel submits
 that Shri. S.M. Kankaria had ceased to be a
 Directors sometime in the year 1993. Therefore, by

¶20

¶21

 the mere fact that he was represented by counsel,
 it cannot be said that the company had notice, as
 admittedly there is no record to indicate that the
 company which was one of the appellant were served.
 It is, therefore, submitted that it would be fair,
 just and proper that the impugned order be set
 aside and petitioner be given an opportunity to
 contest the order of pre-deposit of the amount as
 also hearing on merits. It is then pointed out
 that the notice has been served intimating that
 auction of the property for recovery of dues is to
 be held on 14th August 2007 at 11 hours.

¶22

 6) Considering the above facts, the present
 petition is disposed of by issuing the following
 directions :

¶23

 (i) The Petitioners in respect of the
 property will not create any third party
 rights until disposal of their application
 by the learned Tribunal.

¶24

 (ii) The order dated 26/3/2007 is set
 aside and application No. E/RO/1270 is
 allowed to the extent that the impugned
 order of 26/3/2007 is set aside and the
 Tribunal is directed to re-hear the

¶25

¶26

 application.

¶27

 (iii) The order dated 17/3/2005

¶28

 dismissing the petitioners appeal is also

¶29

 set aside as also the order dated 28th

¶30

 January 2005 dismissing the application for
 waiver of pre- deposit. The Tribunal
 directed to hear the application No.
 E/S/709 of 2003 on merits and thereafter to
 dispose of the appeal in accordance with

¶31

 law.

¶32

 (iv) The petitioners to appear before

¶33

 the Tribunal on 24th August 2007 at 11 am.
 Thereafter the learned Tribunal to hear the
 application for pre-deposit within one
 month thereafter and pass order according

¶34

 to law.

¶35

 7) Rule is made absolute accordingly with no

¶36

 order as to costs.

¶37

( J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)( F.I. REBELLO, J.)

M/S. Ram Remedies Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Ram Remedies Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and 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

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Vs M/S. Aryaship Breaking Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Sushila Indubhai Patel Vs Union of India and Ors.

Champaklal Daulatram Mehta and Anr. Vs the Appropriate Authortiy

The Commissione of Income Tax, Mumbai Vs Shri Sunil Pran Sikand

State of Maharashtra and the Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board Vs Suryadarshan Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors.

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad. Vs Shankar Sahakari S.R. Ltd. Bhokar