Dismissed

Metal Goods Mfg. Co. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC28 Jul 2009WP/3017/1988

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an order dismissing an appeal on alleged misutilization of imported raw material, the Court rejected the petitioners' claim that the order was invalid due to lack of signatures by Committee members. The Court held decisions taken collectively don't require individual signatures. Dismissing the petition, the Court found the findings were factual and the order required

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.

Metal Goods Mfg. Co. and Ors. Vs Union of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

abs

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 3017 OF 1988

¶6

Metal Goods Mfg. Co. & Ors. .. Petitioners V/s Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents

¶7

Mr. L.S. Shetty for the Petitioners.

¶8

Ms. N.V. Masurkar for the respondents.

¶9

CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & D.G. KARNIK, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 28TH JULY 2009

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

The petitioners by the present petition impugns the order dated 27^th June 1986 passed by the Additional Controller of Imports and Exports and the order dated 11^th August 1988 passed by the Appellate Committee.

¶13

At the hearing of this petition, on behalf of the petitioners, their learned counsel submits that the order is signed by the Under Secretary to the Government of India and not by all the members of the Committee and on this count itself the order is liable to be set aside.

¶14

¶15

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and asked him to point out to us in the petition where the averment has been made that the decision is not by the Committee. Learned counsel was unable to show any averment in the petition. Learned counsel then submits that in para 19A of the additional affidavit dated 21^st July 2009, which submitted in the Court today, they have so pleaded. A perusal of the averments in the said affidavit, we do not find a plea that the decision was not taken by the members of the Committee. All that is set out is that the members have not signed it. If such a plea had been taken, the respondents could have produced the record. Learned counsel then submits that he may be permitted to amend the petition.

¶16

We find from the order of the Appellate Committee that the order itself states that the matter was heard by the Committee in the presence of advocates for the parties and the party himself. In the last part of the order, this is what is set out:

¶17

“Considering the above facts, the Committee came to the conclusion that the imported raw material had been misutilised and hence dismissed the appeal.”

¶18

It is thus clear that the decision was taken by the Committee. The mere fact that the order annexed by the petitioners to the petition shows one signature

¶19

¶20

would not mean that the decision was not taken by the Committee. In the absence of any other material, it is not possible to hold that the decision was not taken by the Committee. Consequently, that contention is rejected.

¶21

Having said so, the only other contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that in fact the raw material was used to make industrial strainers. From the concurrent finding of fact both by the Original Authority and the Appellate Authority, we find that what the petitioners were doing was merely cutting the sheets and selling therm to third parties. These are clearly finding of fact. In fact, from the order of the Original Authority dated 27^th June 1986 we find that the Appellate Authority had earlier remanded the matter to the Original Authority giving an opportunity to the petitioners for leading the evidence. The additional evidence had been considered by both the Original Authority and the Appellate Authority. After considering the evidence, both the Authorities have arrived at a concurrent finding of fact that the petitioners did not use the raw material for the purpose it was imported. The finding recorded by both the Authorities below is purely finding of fact. The order does not disclose any infirmity on the face of record.

¶22

In the light of the above, no interference is called for. The writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.

¶23

(D.G. KARNIK, J.)

¶24

(F.I. REBELLO, J.)

Metal Goods Mfg. Co. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Metal Goods Mfg. Co. and Ors. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manish D. Shah. Vs C.M.Betgeri and Ors.

Wallace Flour Mills Ltd. Vs J.M.Swarup and Ors.

M/S Orian Chemicals Vs Income Tax Officers and Ors.

Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg)Co.Ltd.and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S. Cham Ice and Cold Storages and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

L.S.Tantia Vs Union of India and Ors.