Allowed

Messrs Bloom Dekor Limited v. Union of India

Gujarat HC27 Jun 2018SCA/4221/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a special civil application challenging a CESTAT order. Found the Tribunal violated natural justice by deciding the appeal on merits without hearing the condonation of delay application. Set aside the order, condoned the 425-day delay, and directed fresh disposal by the Tribunal. Ordered petitioner to pay Rs. 15,000 cost. Case disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment of CESTAT dated 19.2.2018 set aside. Delay condoned. Petitioner directed to pay Rs. 15,000 cost. Petition disposed of.

Messrs Bloom Dekor Limited Vs Union of India — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gujarat HC (2018)

¶1

C/SCA/4221/2018 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4221 of 2018

¶4

==========================================================

¶5

MESSRS BLOOM DEKOR LIMITED

¶6

Versus UNION OF INDIA

¶7

==========================================================

¶8

Appearance:

¶9

AMAL PARESH DAVE(8961) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1,2 MR PARESH M DAVE(260) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1,2 MR NIRZAR S DESAI(2117) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 3 NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2 UNSERVED WANT OF TIM(31) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1

¶10

==========================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA

¶12

Date : 27/06/2018

¶13

ORAL ORDER

¶14

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)

¶15

The petitioners have challenged an order dated 19.2.2018 passed by CESTAT in the following circumstances.

¶16

The petitioner had preferred appeal before the Tribunal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 5.5.2015. There was delay of 425 days in filing such appeal. Separate application for condonation of delay was also filed. According to the petitioners, Tribunal had fixed the date of hearing of such application. On the date so fixed, hearing took place only with respect to the question of condonation of delay. The Tribunal however disposed of the appeal on merits rejecting the same. The petitioners have therefore, pressed the ground of serious breach of

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

C/SCA/4221/2018 ORDER

¶19

principles of natural justice. The respondents have appeared and are represented by their counsel.

¶20

We do not have any reason to discard the petitioners' averments on oath. It would therefore, emerge that the Tribunal by the impugned judgment decided the appeal of the petitioners on merits when only hearing that took place was with respect to the application for condonation of delay. Without condoning delay, it was not open for the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal on merits. It was possible for the Tribunal to hear both the proceedings simultaneously and after condoning delay, decide the appeal on merits. However, it was not so done in the present case.

¶21

We have also perused the application for condonation of delay. Broadly stated, the grounds made out are that the copy of order of the Commissioner was received by the watchman of the company. He handed over the same to an employee who left the service shortly after that. It is pointed out that the issue is a recurring one and the petitioners have pursued their remedies in prior and succeeding periods.

¶22

Under the circumstances, impugned judgment dated 19.2.2018 is set aside. We find that the delay is also required to be condoned. We therefore, condone the delay, place the revived appeal before the Tribunal for fresh disposal on merits after hearing both the sides. However, considering the length of delay, we direct the petitioner to pay cost of Rs.15,000/- to the respondents.

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

C/SCA/4221/2018 ORDER

¶25

6. Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶26

(AKIL KURESHI, J)

¶27

(B.N. KARIA, J)

¶28

raghu

¶29

Page 3 of 3

Messrs Bloom Dekor Limited v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Messrs Bloom Dekor Limited v. Union of India

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

Cadila Health Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

Muktaben Ravji Patel (Chovatiya) L.H. of Decd. Ravji Valji Patel (Chovatiya) Vs the State of Gujarat

Ranchodbhai Kanjibhai Bhagat Vs Meeraben Ranchodbhai Bhagat D/O Sunjibhai Rathwa

Bajrang Lal Sharma Vs Union of India

Shri Rasiklal S Marida Vs Assets Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd.

Manishaben Jayeshbhai Patel Vs Jayeshbhai Karsanbhai Patel