Disposed

Ms Satyam Petrochemicals through Shri Vikrant Rajendra Ghute v. Union of India through Secretary

Bombay HC14 Oct 2024WP/2001/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-bench order disposed of two concurrent writ petitions filed by different companies against the Union of India. The Court declined to entertain the merits, observing that the impugned orders were appealable. The petitioners were granted liberty to pursue the statutory appeals pending, with all contentions left open for future consideration should they fail in the appellate forums. No cos

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed without prejudice; petitioners granted liberty to file pursue statutory appeals; all contentions left open; no costs.

Ms Satyam Petrochemicals through Shri Vikrant… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

07-WP.468.2024 & 08-WP.2001.2024.doc

¶2

TAUSEEF LAIQUEE FAROOQUI

¶3

Digitally signed by TAUSEEF LAIQUEE FAROOQUI Date: 2024.10.14 18:44:13 +0530

¶4

Tauseef

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.468 OF 2024

¶7

Laxmi Organics Industries Limited, through Aniket B. Hirpara ...Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Union of India, Through Secretary Ministry of Finance (Dept. of Revenue) & Ors. ...Respondents

¶10

AND

¶11

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2001 OF 2024

¶12

Ms Satyam Petrochemicals Through Shri Vikrant Rajendra Ghute ...Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

Union of India, Through Secretary Ministry of Finance (Dept. of Revenue) & Ors.

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

Mr. Abhishek A. Rastogi (through V.C.) a/w. Mr. Pratyush Shah, Adv. Meenal Songire and Mr. Aarya More i/b. M/s. Khaitan & Co. for Petitioner in both the petitions.

¶17

Mr. M. P. Sharma a/w. Ms. Megha Bajoria for Respondents in WP/468/2024.

¶18

Mr. Vijay H. Kantharia a/w. Ms. Sangeeta Yadav for Respondents in WP/2001/2024.

¶19

CORAM : M. S. SONAK &

¶20

JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.

¶21

DATED : 14^th OCTOBER 2024

¶22

P.C. :

¶23

WRIT PETITION NO.468 OF 2024

¶24

The Petitioner has already filed an appeal to challenge the

¶25

1 of 3

¶26

Tauseef

¶27

07-WP.468.2024 & 08-WP.2001.2024.doc

¶28

impugned order dated 22 August 2022 before the Appellate Authority.

¶29

Accordingly, we do not propose to entertain the Writ Petition No.468 of 2024 but grant the Petitioner liberty to pursue the appeal already filed. If the Petitioner does not secure reliefs in the appeal and other proceedings under the Act, the Petitioner will have the liberty to raise all contentions as have now been raised in this petition. This is because, we have not examined the rival contentions on merits and all contentions of all the parties are left open.

¶30

WRIT PETITION NO.2001 OF 2024:-

¶31

The impugned order dated 25 January 2023 is appealable, therefore, we do not propose to entertain this petition, leaving it open to the Petitioner to file an appeal to challenge the order dated 25 January 2023 before the Appellate Authority.

¶32

All contentions of all the parties including the contentions raised by the Petitioner in this petition are left open.

¶33

In paragraph 23 of Writ Petition No.2001 of 2024, incorrect statement has been made by the Petitioner. In any event now that we have relegated the Petitioner to the alternate remedy available under the Act, we do not propose to comment any further on the statement made in the said paragraph.

¶34

2 of 3

¶35

07-WP.468.2024 & 08-WP.2001.2024.doc

¶36

Tauseef

¶37

Accordingly, both these petitions are disposed of with liberty

¶38

in the above terms. There should be no order for costs.

¶39

All concerns to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶40

Mr. Rastogi states that appeal would be filed within three weeks from today. If the appeal is indeed filed within three weeks from today, the same should be considered on its merits given the fact that Writ Petition No.2001 of 2024 was instituted by the Petitioner on 16 March 2023, i.e., within the limitation period prescribed for instituting an appeal. Besides, the Petitioner was pursuing this petition bonafidely before this Court upto today.

¶41

(JITENDRA JAIN, J.) (M. S. SONAK, J.)

¶42

3 of 3

Ms Satyam Petrochemicals through Shri Vikrant Rajendra Ghute v. Union of India through Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Satyam Petrochemicals through Shri Vikrant Rajendra Ghute v. Union of India through Secretary

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Tech-Connect Retail Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner, Gst, Division-Vi, Mumbai Central Commissionerate

Pepperfry Limited vs Union of India

Indoco Remedies Limited vs Union of India

Supriya Lifescience Limited vs Union of India

Pepperfry Private Limited vs Union of India

Viswaat Chemicals Ltd. vs Union of India