Dismissed

Shri Nitesh Patel v. the Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Nov 2024WP/1730/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined interference in an Original Writ Petition regarding an Order-in-Original, applying a recent Supreme Court review decision. The petitioner was granted 8 weeks to file an appeal, directing the Appellate Authority to consider it on merit without limitation issues.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted 8 weeks time to file appeal; Order-in-Original not interfered with; appellate authority to consider appeal on merit.

Shri Nitesh Patel vs the Union of India and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Digitally SAYYED signed bySAYYED Revati SAEED SAEED ALI AHMED ALI ALI AHMEDALI Date:2024.11.27 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 18:35:29 +0530 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1730 OF 2024

¶2

Revati 903.WP.1730.24.docx

¶3

Nitesh Patel

¶4

.. Petitioner

¶5

Versus Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents

¶6

Mr. Anil Balani i/b PDS Legal for the petitioner. Mr. Karan Adik a/w Sangeeta Yadav for respondents.

¶7

CORAM : M. S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. DATE : 27 November 2024

¶8

P.C.:-

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned Order-inOriginal dated 27 January 2023 given the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court order dated 7 November 2024 in Review Petition No.400 of 2021 in the case of ‘Commissioner of Customs Vs. Canon India Private Limited’ (Civil Appeal No.1827 of 2018). However, consistent with the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision, we grant the petitioner 8 weeks time (from the date of uploading of the present order) to file appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 27 January 2023. If such an appeal is filed within 8 weeks, the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal on merit without adverting the issue of limitation.

¶11

Mr. Balani, learned counsel for the petitioner however states that the relief prayed in prayer clause (a) is not being press at this stage. 4. Accordingly, for the above reasons, and by following the Hon’ble Supreme Court order dated 7 November 2024 and the order

¶12

1 of 2

¶13

Revati 903.WP.1730.24.docx

¶14

made by us in similar cases, we decline to interfere in the Order-inOriginal but relegate the petitioner to alternate remedy of appeal.

¶15

All the contentions of all parties, except those concluded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision dated 7 November 2024 are kept open.

¶16

This petition is disposed of in the above terms without any order for costs. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Interim applications, if any, do not survive and are disposed of.

¶17

All concerned to act upon the authenticated copy of this order.

¶18

(Jitendra Jain, J .) ( M. S. Sonak, J.)

¶19

2 of 2

Shri Nitesh Patel v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Nitesh Patel v. the 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pfizer Limited vs Asst Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 14 1 1

Aditya Birla Sun Life Amc Limited vs National Faceless Assessment Center Delhi

Aditya Birla Sun Life Amc Limited vs National Faceless Assessment Center Delhi

Supriya Lifescience Limited vs Union of India

Deepak Gala vs the Union of India

Sherry Singh vs Mohini Sharma and 38 Ors.