TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne, 2010, 3rd September, 2009 together with attachment order dated 6th August, 2010 and prayed for interim reliefs in terms of prayers made in the appeal. - Held that: - the appellant was guilty of keeping the petition pending for seven months and not obtaining appropriate orders from the writ Court. It was not obligatory on the Tribunal to grant further time for compliance of order of pre-deposit without there being any such request from the appellant before expiry of the time already fixed by it. The appeal was, thus, rightly dismissed for non-compliance of the order of pre-deposit. - 94 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 21-9-2010 - V.C. Daga and R.M. Savant, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri J.J. Bhatt, Sr. Advocate with A.M. Sethna i/b. J.B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement of Rs. 12,82,90,000/- as directed by this Court vide its order dated 31st October, 2001 passed in Writ Petition No. 2388/2000, which was ultimately granted by the Development Commissioner vide his order dated 9th January, 2002. 5. The Development Commissioner, vide his order dated 4th June, 2003 reviewed the aforesaid order and cancelled the permission. The review order was passed by the Development Commissioner without show-cause-notice to the appellant and without affording any opportunity of hearing in that behalf. The said order of review was challenged by the appellant by filing Writ Petition No. 1718/2003 before this Court which is still pending. 6. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Khopoli Division M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithin a period of eight weeks. The compliance was to be reported on 9th November, 2009. 12. The aforesaid order directing pre-deposit was a subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No. 2195/2009 filed before this Court. During the pendency of the said petition, appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 11th June, 2010 for non-compliance of the order of pre-deposit. Consequently, Writ Petition No. 2195/2009 came to be dismissed vide order 21st June, 2010 holding it to be infructuous. Now under order dated 6th August, 2010, the respondents have attached the goods of the appellant. The appellant has now filed present appeal challenging the orders dated 11th June, 2010, 3rd September, 2009 together with attachment order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was to be complied with within a period of eight weeks and compliance was to be reported on 9th November, 2009. He, thus, submits that just two days before the expiry of period meant for compliance of the order of pre-deposit, appellant filed writ petition. On the top of it, it was deliberately kept pending till June 2010. No orders were obtained. Consequently, appeal filed before the Tribunal was rightly dismissed by the Tribunal for non-compliance of the order of pre-deposit. 16. Mr. Desai submits that had the bona fides of the appellant been clear, the appellant would have obtained urgent circulation from the writ Court. According to him, writ petition was deliberately kept pending for a period of more than seven months. It wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... compliance of the order of pre-deposit dated 3rd September, 2009. 20. At this stage, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Trilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi, AIR 1970 SC 898; wherein the question of delay was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in moving Court in furtherance of his right to seek the remedy. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under : "If then there is no period prescribed what is the standard for this Court to follow? I should say that utmost expedition is the sine qua non for such claims. The party aggrieved must move the Court at the earliest possible time and explain satisfactorily all semblance of delay. I am not indicating any period which may be regarded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eeping the petition pending for seven months and not obtaining appropriate orders from the writ Court. It was not obligatory on the Tribunal to grant further time for compliance of order of pre-deposit without there being any such request from the appellant before expiry of the time already fixed by it. The appeal was, thus, rightly dismissed for non-compliance of the order of pre-deposit. 23. The aforesaid view of ours is in consonance with the view of this Court in the case of P. Narayan Pillai v. T.V. Rangrajan, 1974 Mh.L.J. 352; wherein, in more or less similar facts, writ Court had refused to entertain petition. 24. We may place it in record that, during the course of hearing, it was suggested to the appellant to uncond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
