Allowed

M/S. Shrishti Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC6 Apr 2009WP/552/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order dismissing an appeal because the petitioner failed to deposit a specified amount. The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in law for not hearing the petitioners' application to modify the interim deposit order. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored for disposal.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 27th January, 2009 set aside and appeal restored to the Tribunal for consideration of the modification application.

M/S. Shrishti Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

 : 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 O.O.C.J.

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.552 OF 2009

¶4

 M/s. Shrishti Impex Private Ltd. & Anr. ...Petitioners.
 V/s.

¶5

 Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents.

¶6

 Mr.Vikram Nankani with Mr.Sushant Murthy and Mr.Madhur Baya
 , advs. for the Petitioners.

¶7

 Mr.R.G.Bhat with Mr.Rojinder Kumar , advs. for the
 Respondents.

¶8

 CORAM: F.I.Rebello &
J.H.Bhatia,JJ.

¶9

 DATE : 6th April, 2009.

¶10

 P.C.:

¶11

 1. Rule.

¶12

 2. Heard forthwith. The Tribunal had directed the

¶13

 petitioners herein to deposit an amount as a condition for
 hearing the appeal. Appeal came for hearing on 27th
 January, 2009 by which date the amount was not deposited.

¶14

 3. Petitioners on 22nd January, 2009 moved an

¶15

 application for modification of the interim order dated

¶16

 14.11.2008 for the reasons set out in the said

¶17

 application. The Tribunal without considering the said
 application, dismissed the appeal on 27.1.2009 on the
 ground that the amount ordered on 14.11.2008 had not been
 deposited.

¶18

 : 2 :

¶19

 4. Petitioners have moved this Court contending that

¶20

 though on 22nd January, 2009, they had applied for
 modification of the order dated 14.11.2008, the Tribunal
 without considering the said application, could not have
 dismissed the appeal on 27.1.2009. At the hearing of this
 petition, the learned counsel for the Respondents submits
 that the Tribunal had already considered the contents of
 the application dated 22nd January, 2009 while passing the
 order of 14.11.2008. No discussion on this aspect is seen
 in the order dated 27.1.2009 dismissing the appeal.

¶21

 5. It was open for the Tribunal to have called
 application for modification filed on 22nd January, 2009
 and heard it alongwith the appeal and passed the order in
 the application before disposing off the appeal. This has
 not been done. This amounts to an error of law and
 consequently, the impugned order dated 27th January, 2009
 is liable to be set aside. Hence, the following order:

¶22

 i. Impugned order dated 27th January, 2009 is set
 aside.

¶23

 ii. Appeal is restored to the file of the Tribunal.
 Tribunal to consider the application dated 22nd January,
 2009 and after hearing the parties to pass orders thereon

¶24

 : 3 :

¶25

 according to law and then to proceed to dispose off the
 appeal.

¶26

 iii. Rule made absolute accordingly, No order as to
 costs.

¶27

 6. Considering the contention on behalf of the
 Revenue, Tribunal to dispose off the pending application
 within 90 days of the copy of the order being brought

¶28

 to the attention of the counsel for the Revenue.

¶29

(F.I.Rebello, J.)

¶30

(J.H.Bhatia, J.)

M/S. Shrishti Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Shrishti Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and 2 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

Gujarat Park Hotels Ltd. Vs Suman Resorts India Ltd.

Amarjit Singh Gill Vs the Union of India -through the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr.

The Commissioner of Customs ( Export) , Raigad Vs Metallic Bellows (I) Pvt. Ltd. Tamil Nadu

The Commissioner of Central Excise Pune Ii, Pune Vs M/S. Bespask , Kolhapur