Disposed
Cepco Industries Private Limited v. Union of India
Delhi HCW.P.(C)/2123/2018
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
2123/2018 Page 1 of 4 $~63 *IN THE HIGH…
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.
$~63
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment pronounced on: 07.03.2018
CEPCO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw, Mr. Sanyat Lodha, Ms. Hansa Kaul and Mr. Deepak Joshi, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Pratyush Miglani, Adv.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER %
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)
CM No.8812/2018
W.P.(C) 2123/2018 & CM No.8811/2018
Page 1 of 4
W.P.(C) 2123/2018
imposition of misuse charges and other charges which are sought to be recovered vide the impugned demand notice dated 05.03.2013.
5.2. In this behalf, my attention has been drawn by Mr. Kaul to orders dated 25.2.2011 and 3.8.2011, passed by this court.
5.3 Via the order dated 3.8.2011, the L&DO was directed to undertake an inspection of the subject premises within a period of four weeks from the date when the order was passed and thereafter to raise a demand on the petitioner qua unauthorized construction and/or for misuse charges.
6.1. As per this demand notice, the demand raised on the petitioner was for the sum of Rs.1,36,15,38,201/-. However, vide
Page 2 of 4
W.P.(C) 2123/2018
impugned notice dated 24.01.2018, this demand as of now stands escalated to a sum of Rs.3,91,06,80,928/-.
6.2 Mr. Kaul says that apart from the fact that no details are given, the demand is completely untenable.
6.3. For this purpose, Mr. Kaul has drawn my attention to the extract obtained from the official file of the L&DO vide a RTI route.
6.4. Mr. Kaul says that while it may make some sense if the demand is effected from 19.5.2005, it would make no sense whatsoever, if demand is sought to be made with effect from 1.1.1991.
6.5. This submission is, however, made by Mr. Kaul with a caveat that even if the demand is raised even from 2005, is time barred.
Page 3 of 4
W.P.(C) 2123/2018
10.1. Needless to say, the respondent will pass a speaking order, a copy of which will be furnished to the petitioner
10.2. In case the order passed is adverse to the interest of the petitioner, the interim protection granted by the court will continue to operate for a further period of one week.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J MARCH 07, 2018 mk
Page 4 of 4
W.P.(C) 2123/2018
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Karnataka High Court can grant interim stay and issue notice to address representation regarding escalation of demand notice.
CEPCO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED
UNION OF INDIA
RAJIV SHAKDHER
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court