TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 602X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, for the interested parties Per Shri Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar: Heard the Advocate for the appellants and the Advocate for the respondent. Perused the records. In the present case, the appellants are challenging the final findings dated 24.11.2009 issued by the Designated Authority. 2. Initiation Notification was issued on 25.11.2008. The period of investigation covered from 1.1.2007 to 31.12.2007. Preliminary findings were issued on 27.3.2009. Corrigendum thereto was issued on 22.4.2009. The Customs Notification based thereon was issued on 22.4.2009. In view of corrigendum dated 27.4.2009 issued by the Designated Authority, the corrigendum to Customs Notification was issued on 30.5.2009. The Public hearings were conducted on 26.6.2009 and the appellants submitted written submissions on 20.7.2009. Further, rejoinder was filed by the appellants on 10.8.2009. The disclosure statement was issued on 12.11.2009. The date for filing comments were notified as 20.11.2009. The final findings were issued on 24.11.2009. The appellants approached with representation to the Designated Authority on 1.12.2009. The appellants also made representation on 15.12.2009. The appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng and again before the Tribunal. According to the learned Advocate, it is well settled position that no litigants can be permitted to pursue the multiple proceedings as the same amount to gross abuse of process of law. She further submitted that a party has to elect only one remedy. In the instant case, the appellant has chosen the remedy before the Hon'ble High Court against the final findings. The matter in that regard has already been disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court by its order dated 8.10.2010. It is not open for the appellants to pursue the matter against the final findings before this Tribunal. Reliance is placed in the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in 2000 (118) ELT 305 (SC), as also the decision of the Bombay High Court in the matter of SmithKline Beecham Consumer Healthcare GMBHY and Ors. vs. Hindustan Lever Limited and Anr. reported in (2002) ILLJ 453 Bom. as also the decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Nawab Hussain reported in AIR SC 1680. 6. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that the challenge before the High Court was for a limited purpose and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... possible concluded within six months. 7. The petition stands disposed of." 8. Plain reading of the above quoted order passed by the Hon'ble High Court discloses that challenge to the final finding was rejected taking into consideration the fact that already mid term review has been initiated as was pending before the designated authority and therefore, the appellants can put forth their grievance before the designated authority. In other words, the Hon'ble High Court rejected the challenge to the final finding while giving liberty to the appellants to put forth their grievances before the designated authority in the review proceeding. Undoubtedly, the review proceedings are in terms of Rule 23 of the Anti-Dumping Rules. This fact was also noted by the Hon'ble High Court while disposing of the writ petition as is apparent from para 4 of the order of the Hon'ble High Court quoted above. 9. Simultaneously, the appellants are entitled to raise all the relevant issues including those raised in the writ petition before the designated authority. In other words, the challenge to the final findings at the instance of the appellants stood concluded before the Hon'ble High Court an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that subject, between the parties. In my opinion, with the same object the provisions of Section 11, explanation IV of the Civil Procedure Code have been enacted. Therefore, in my opinion, the provisions of Section 11, Explanation IV and Order II, Rule 1 are in furtherance of the same scheme i.e. to prevent repeated litigation between the same parties on the same subject. It is further to be noted here that Rule 1 of Order II uses the phrase 'subject in dispute' and not the phrase 'cause of action' which is used in Rule 2 of Order II of the Civil Procedure Code, similarly Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code uses the phrase 'matter which might or ought to have been a ground of attack'. It thus appears that, though there are several causes of action available to a plaintiff, if all the cause of action are relating to the subject in dispute, then Order II, Rule 1 obliges the plaintiff to include all those causes of action in one suit, if it is practicable for the plaintiff to do so. Now, if a plaintiff disregards the mandate of Order II, Rule 1 and institutes a suit leaving out some grounds available to him on the subject in dispute and subsequently institutes a suit on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
