Dismissed
Shri Lalit Pukhraj Deshlahara,Prop.of M/S.Lalit Products, v. Union of India and 2 Ors.
Bombay HCWP/1723/2011
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
snc IN THE HIGH COURT
What the court decided
AI extract
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.
1
WP 1723-11
snc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1723 OF 2011
Shri. Lalit Pukhraj Deshlahara ...Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. M.C.Shah i/b Mr. Akhilesh Singh for Petitioner. None for Respondent.
CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD & M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.
DATE : 02 FEBRUARY 2012.
P.C.
The earlier petition, which was filed by the Petitioner was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 30 June 2003 for non compliance of a previous order of the Court dated 21 April 2003. By the order of the Court dated 21 April 2003, it was directed as follows :
“ The Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner makes a statement that his client is ready to deposit Rs. 13,10,581/- towards the duty liability, which according to him is a total liability, provided 8 weeks time is granted.
Accordingly, at the request of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, we grants 8 weeks time to deposit the amount of duty. Failure on his part to deposit this amount would result to dismissal of this petition on the ground of unexplained latches. However, if the petitioner shows his bonafides by
2
WP 1723-11
depositing the said amount of duty, the question of latches may be considered in its proper perspective. The Petitioner may file better affidavit to explain delay in presenting the petition, however, the same could be considered provided petitioner stands by his statement made and amount of duty is deposited by him.
S.O. After 8 weeks.”
By the subsequent order of 30 June 2003, the Court
dismissed the petition for the following reasons:
“ The Petitioner makes a statement that the petitioner is not in a position to comply with the order dated 21 April 2003, which was passed at the instance of the Petitioner. This Court would be justified in refusing to exercise writ jurisdiction if the petitioner has no respect to the order of the Court which was invited by him. So long as the order stands, he cannot be heard of saying that he will not comply with the order of the Court and still indulgence be shown by the Court.
Petition is therefore, dismissed for noncompliance of the order dated 21 April 2003 with no order as to costs.”
In that view of the matter, the present petition which is essentially founded on the same cause of action, cannot be entertained.
The Petition is accordingly, dismissed.
(DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J)
(M.S. SANKLECHA, J)
Shri. Lalit Pukhraj Deshlahara
Union of India & Ors.
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
M.S. SANKLECHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court