2010 (9) TMI 617 - HC - Customs

Pending decision - Double Member Bench is not available - The grievance is that the petitioner is unable to pursue its remedy in appeal due to non-availability of the Double Member Bench at the Tribunal in Kolkata. - , since Double Member Bench is not available, the grievance of the petitioner is justified - finds support from the judgment in Yeshanand Filaments - Therefore, in the interest of justice, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents not to give effect to the order in original passed by the respondent No. 1 till the regular bench becomes available in Kolkata or till the application for stay of the petitioner in connection with the appeal presented before the Double Member Bench of the Tribunal is proceeded with, whichever is earlier

Summary

Issues:
1. Petition for direction against respondents not to give effect to order of confiscation of goods and penalty due to irregular sitting of Double Member Bench.
2. Consideration of application for out of turn hearing.
3. Grievance of petitioner due to non-availability of Double Member Bench.
4. Disposal of writ petition directing respondents not to give effect to original order until regular bench is available or stay application is processed.
5. Deemed non-admission of allegations by respondents.
6. No costs ordered.
7. Furnishing urgent copy of order to parties.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a company under the Companies Act, sought direction against respondents not to implement an order of confiscation and penalty due to irregular sitting of the Double Member Bench. Citing Yeshanand Filaments Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, the petitioner argued for a stay on the order until the regular bench is available.
2. The respondent's advocate mentioned an application for out of turn hearing, emphasizing adherence to legal procedures.
3. The Court acknowledged the irregular sitting of the Double Member Bench, causing hindrance to the petitioner's appeal process. Relying on the Yeshanand Filaments case, the Court found the petitioner's grievance justified.
4. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition by instructing the respondents not to enforce the original order until the regular bench resumes in Kolkata or the stay application is processed, whichever happens first. The petitioner was directed to act promptly once the bench is available, failing which the interim order would be vacated.
5. The Court clarified that since the petition was disposed of at the admission stage without requiring responses from the respondents, the allegations were not deemed admitted by them.
6. No costs were imposed by the Court.
7. The Court ordered the urgent provision of a certified copy of the judgment to the involved parties upon request.