Disposed

Gati Kintetsu Express Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC21 Feb 2013CWJC/23519/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition against vehicle detention and seizure. Petitioner claimed compliance with earlier order by providing bank guarantee but failed to submit the required undertaking. Court directed payment of remaining penalty and disposed of petition.

What did the court decide?

Director petitioner to pay remaining penalty within 15 days; previously made payments and bank guarantee subject to appeal outcome.

Gati Kintetsu Express Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State Of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23519 of 2012

¶2

====================================================== Gati- Kintetsu Express Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act having its office at M.G. Road, P.O.-Secundrabad, P.S.Secundrabad, Town & District- Secundrabad- 500003, Andra Pradesh through its Branch Manager, Patna, Ritesh Kumar Thakur, S/O Shri Birendra Mohan Thakur, R/O Plot No.-3, Gate No.-02, Transport Nagar, P.O.- Agamkuan, P.S.- Agamkuan, Patna (Bihar) .... .... Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

1. State of Bihar through the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar, Patna having its office at Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna

¶5

1. Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Integrated Check Post, Karmnasha, Bhabhua

¶6

1. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Integrated Check Post, Karmnasha, Bhabhua

¶7

Commercial Taxes Officer Integrated Check Post, Karmnasha, Bhabhua. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Lalit Kishore, AAG 1 Mr. Vikash Kumar, A.C. to AAG 1. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and

¶8

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER

¶9

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶10

9 21-02-2013 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed against the action of the respondents in detaining the vehicle, the truck bearing registration No. UP-70BT-4468 at Karmnasha Check Post at the border between the State of Uttar Pradesh and the State of Bihar and the seizure of the goods. The petitioner is the transporter of the goods.

¶11

Patna High Court CWJC No.23519 of 2012 (9) dt.21-02-2013

¶12

2 / 3

¶13

Under our order dated 19th December 2012, we had allowed the release of the vehicle on condition that the petitioner gave bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- ( Two lakhs and fifty thousands ) and gave an undertaking to this Court, inter alia, to the effect that the vehicle in question would be maintained in roadworthy condition and will be produced before the respondent authorities as and when required. Such undertaking was to be given latest by 2nd January 2013.

¶14

Today, learned counsel Mr. Ramakant Sharma has appeared for the petitioner. He states that the petitioner did give bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Two lakhs and fifty thousands) as directed and the vehicle has been released. He further states that as directed by this Court, the Board of Directors authorized the Executive Director of the petitioner company to give undertaking. He has submitted that the undertaking has been placed on the record today.

¶15

Mr. Sharma has produced three undertakings given by three different persons including the petitioner Company. The undertakings submitted by Mr. Sharma are not acceptable to this Court. It is apparent that the petitioner has failed to give undertaking as directed by this Court.

¶16

In the above circumstances, we direct that the petitioner will pay the remaining amount of the penalty imposed under the impugned order dated 1^st December 2012 within 15 days from today. In case the petitioner fails to pay the remaining amount of the penalty as directed hereinabove, the respondents will be at liberty to make coercive recovery thereof.

¶17

It is clarified that the petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the impugned order dated 1^st December 2012 before the

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.23519 of 2012 (9) dt.21-02-2013

¶19

3 / 3

¶20

appropriate forum. If the petitioner challenges the order before the appropriate forum, the payment made under this order and the bank guarantee given under order dated 19^th December 2012, will be subject to the result of the appeal that may be preferred by the petitioner.

¶21

Subject to the above direction, the petition is disposed of.

¶22

(R.M. Doshit, CJ)

¶23

Sujit/-

¶24

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

Gati Kintetsu Express Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gati Kintetsu Express Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Union Of India and Ors. Vs Jai Prakash

Rabindra Nath Pandey and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Jahangir Ansari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Md.Kamaluddin Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Bihar State Co-Operative Bank Vs the Regional Provident Fund Co.

The State of Bihar and Ors. Vs Guru Sharan Thakur