A writ petition challenging an order directing deposit of 60% penalty. The Court reduced the deposit requirement to Rs. 50 lacs within eight weeks to prevent deprivation of appeal remedy, without examining merits.
Deposit amount reduced to Rs. 50 lacs to be deposited within eight weeks.
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.
hvn
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1758 OF 2009
Satpal Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. V.R. Nankani i/by M/s. Nankani & Associates for Petitioners.
Mr. S.S. Pakale with Mr. V.B. Tiwari for Respondents.
CORAM : F.I. REBELLO &
D.G. KARNIK, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 17, 2009
P.C.
Rule. Heard forthwith.
We have heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and considered the impugned order.
We do not propose to go into the merits of th matter. The tribunal has addressed itself to the issue of undue hardship and had granted dispensation of 40% of the penalty amount by directing the appellant to deposit 60% penalty amount within 30 days. According to learned counsel the penalty amount works out to Rs. 74,40,000/-.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, in order
not to deprive the Petitioner of the remedy of an appeal, we reduce the amount of deposit to Rs. 50 lacs. The same to be deposited within eight weeks from today.
Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.
(D.G. KARNIK,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the requirement of deposit of penalty amount should be reduced to preserve the remedy of appeal.
Satpal Singh
Union of India
F.I. Rebello
D.G. Karnik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
