9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application and granted injunction restraining the respondents/defendants therein from proceeding in terms of show cause notice No. SCN 31/95, dated 31-8-95 and amended by addendum dated 15-9-95 pending disposal of the suit. 3.C.R.P. No. 4128/2001 is against order dated 9-8-2001 of the XV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai made in I.A. No. 11797/2001 in O.S. No. 4177/2001 in and by which the learned Judge after setting the first respondent therein-Department ex parte, allowed the application granting injunction restraining the first respondent-Department from initiating any further proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice dated 28-5-2001. 4.C.R.P. No. 4138 of 2001 is against order of the XV Assistant Judge, City Civil Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st case namely, O.S. No. 317/2001, the plaintiff also filed I.A. No. 1182/2001 under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. praying for an order of injunction restraining the defendants-department and their men from proceeding in terms of show cause notice dated 31-8-95 and 15-9-95. The said application was resisted by the department by filing counter. The main contention of the department urged before the Court below is that the suits are not maintainable, since they are barred under Section 40 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The other objection was the plaintiff can very well submit his objections to the show cause notices and depending on the order of the original authority, they can avail the opportunity of filing appeal and revision before th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Limited. Here again, the Department has urged the very same contentions as stated in other C.R.Ps., particularly C.R.P. No. 4113/2001, namely, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction and the plaintiff has effective remedy by way of departmental appeal and revision. 10.Now I shall first consider the main issue namely, (i) Whether the plaintiffs are justified in approaching the Civil Courts questioning the issuance of show cause notices? and (ii) Whether the Courts below are right in allowing the Interlocutory Applications and granting injunction in favour of the plaintiffs?. 11.At the foremost Mr. K. Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the Department by drawing my attention to Section 40 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of this Court and the Apex Court in support of their respective claim, the fact remains that the Department i.e., petitioners/defendants have not filed separate petition under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of C.P.C. for rejection of plaint on the ground that the suit is not maintainable in view of various provisions of the Central Excise Act. It is also not in dispute that if a specific issue regarding jurisdiction is framed, the Court is bound to decide the issue first before going into other issues while pronouncing its Judgment. This is clear from Order 14, Rule 2(2) of Code of Civil Procedure. It is also brought to my notice by Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, learned senior counsel for the contesting respondents, that Section 9 C.P.C. enables the Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut giving any reason much less giving attention to the jurisdictional aspect, particularly taking note of the failure on the part of the Department in filing counter, passed a non-speaking order and granted ex parte injunction. Inasmuch as the respondents/defendants are none-else than the Central Government Department, I am of the view that the trial Court ought to have granted one more opportunity before setting them ex parte and thus committed an error in granting ex parte order of injunction without assigning any reason. In other words, I am satisfied that the order of the XV Assistant Judge does not disclose any reason, particularly whether it has focussed its attention on the point of jurisdiction and whether a prima facie case is made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in dispute that only in C.R.P. No. 57/2002, the Department has prayed for striking down the plaint in O.S. No. 129/2001 of Sub Court, Chengalpattu. In other Revision Petitions, the Department mainly challenges the order passed in the Interlocutory Applications. In such circumstances, particularly taking note of the rival contentions raised relating to jurisdiction with reference to the provisions of the Act as well as judicial pronouncements of this Court and the Apex Court, it is but proper for the respective Courts to frame specific issue relating to jurisdiction and try the same after affording opportunity to both parties. Though the Court is expected to consider all issues both of law and of fact, in view of the serious objections rai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
