The Court refused to direct the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the appeal, as a parallel appeal before CESTAT was pending, to avoid conflicting judgments.
No direction was issued to the Commissioner (Appeals); the matter is to be handled by CESTAT.
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.
Mgn
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4320 OF 2009
Seco Tools India (P) Ltd.
..Petitioners
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
..Respondents
Mr. Madhur R. Baya i/b. Naresh S. Thacker, for the Petitioners. Mr. R.V. Desai, Senior Counsel with Mr. R.B. Pardeshi, for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr.K.R. Chaudhari, for the Respondent No.5.
CORAM : F.I. REBELLO &
J.H. BHATIA, JJ.
DATED : 23RD JUNE, 2009
P.C.
(F.I. REBELLO,J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Writ Petition ought to be disposed of by directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to act despite a pending appeal before CESTAT.
Seco Tools India (P) Ltd.
Union of India
F. I. Rebello
J. H. Bhatia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
