Dismissed

M/S.Conybio Healthcare(India)P Ltd. v. the Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Madras HC11 Nov 2022WA/206/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeals filed under Letters Patent provisions challenging the dismissal of writ petitions were dismissed. The court held that the statutory alternate remedy available to the petitioner must be approached instead of invoking writ jurisdiction. Liberty was granted to file the statutory appeal within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeals were dismissed. Liberty was granted to the appellant to file statutory appeals before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, to be dis

M/S.Conybio Healthcare(India)P Ltd. Vs the… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.A.Nos.206, 207, 208 and 210 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 11.11.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶7

W.A.Nos.206, 207, 208 and 210 of 2022 and

¶8

C.M.P.Nos.1553,1554,,1580 1582, of 2022

¶9

M/s. Conybio Healthcare (India) P Ltd Represented by its Authorised Signatory/General Manager Mrs. Malini

¶10

No.96,Jawaharlal Nehru Salai,

¶11

Ekkattuthangal, Chennai 600 097.

¶12

... Appellant in all Appeals

¶13

vs.

¶14

The Assistant Commissioner (CT) Vadapalani I Assessment Circle, 10-C, Razaak Garden, MMDA Colony, Arumbakkam.

¶15

The Commissioner of Customs (Airport and Air Cargo Complex) Meenambakkam, Chennai 600 027. ... Respondents in all Appeals

¶16

Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, to set

¶17

aside the order passed by the learned Judge in W.P.Nos.25478, 25477,

¶18

25475, 25476 of 2010 dated 16.09.2021.

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

1/4

¶21

W.A.Nos.206, 207, 208 and 210 of 2022

¶22

For Appellant : Mr.C.P.Hemkumar (in all Appeals)

¶23

For Respondents : Mr.Prashanth Kiran (in all Appeals) Government Advocate

¶24

¶25

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

¶26

These Writ Appeals have been preferred against the order dated

¶27

16.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.25478, 25477, 25475, 25476 of 2010.

¶28

The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petitions only on

¶29

the ground that when alternate remedy of filing an Appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner is available to the Petitioner, the Writ Petitions filed by the Petitioner cannot be entertained.

¶30

We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the records.

¶31

There is an efficacious alternate remedy available to the

¶32

petitioner. Therefore, we do not find any reason to disagree with the

¶33

order of the learned Single Judge. Further, there is no violation of

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

2/4

¶36

W.A.Nos.206, 207, 208 and 210 of 2022

¶37

Principles of Natural Justice or that the order was passed without jurisdiction. Statutory remedy under under the Act cannot be bye-passed by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has to work its remedy only before the Appellate Authority.

¶38

In view of the above, these Writ Appeals are liable to be dismissed. They are therefore dismissed. The appellant is however given liberty to file statutory appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. As the time limit for filing an appeal would have already expired, we therefore give liberty to the appellant to file appeals before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If such appeals are filed within such time, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner shall dispose the appeals on merits without reference to limitation. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶39

[S.V.N., J.,] [C.S.N., J]

¶40

11.11.2022

¶41

Index: Yes / No Internet: Yes / No arr

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

3/4

¶44

W.A.Nos.206, 207, 208 and 210 of 2022

¶45

S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.

¶46

and C.SARAVANAN,J.

¶47

arr/kkd

¶48

To:

¶49

The Assistant Commissioner (CT) Vadapalani I Assessment Circle, 10-C, Razaak Garden, MMDA Colony, Arumbakkam.

¶50

The Commissioner of Customs (Airport and Air Cargo Complex) Meenambakkam, Chennai 600 027.

¶51

W.A.Nos.206, 207, 208 and 210 of 2022

¶52

11.11.2022

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

4/4

M/S.Conybio Healthcare(India)P Ltd. v. the Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Conybio Healthcare(India)P Ltd. v. the Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

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

M/S Elgi Ultra Industries Ltd. Vs the State of Tamilnadu

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs M/S.Avr Swarnamahal Jewellery Pvt. Ltd.

M/s.Sharcstar Communications Ltd., Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Tvl. Samundeeswari Jewellery Vs the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Espn Digital Media (India) Pvt. Ltd.

M/S.Seshasayee Paper and Vs the Deputy Commissioner