Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

The State of Maharashtra Versus M/s King Furniture Works

2016 (4) TMI 47 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Condonation of delay - Government pleading condonation on the ground of para 10 and Exhibit 'G' at page 35 to the writ petition - Held that:- if for one and a half years and more the files are lying in Government Pleader's office, then, it is not known why there was no promptness or expediency exhibited in meeting the concerned Government advocates, getting the draft prepared and duly filed. If this is how the Government revenue is sought to be protected, then, we say nothing more. A premium on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the court to condone the lapses and inefficiency or equally dishonesty and corruption. If the court of law is expected to render justice expeditiously, then, it should not be burdened with cases which have been brought belatedly and without any satisfactory and reasonable explanation for the delay. That these are Government matters and the court cannot condone the delay in movement of files, some inaction and negligence on the part of the Government officials, merely because larger public intere .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l Counsel For the Respondent : Ms. Nikita R Badheka ORDER P. C. 1) This writ petition challenges the order passed on the rectification application and which is dated 28th November, 2008. 2) The writ petition is filed on 18th October, 2012. 3) Mr. Sonpal learned Special Counsel appearing in support of this writ petition relies upon para 10 and Exhibit 'G' at page 35 to the writ petition to urge that the delay be condoned and the writ petition be heard on merits. 4) Paragraph 10 of the wri .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t for sanction through proper channel. The Petitioner submits that after obtaining the requisite sanction vide letter dated 29.6.2009, and received by the office of the Government Pleader (AS) (Writ Cell) High Court Mumbai on 14.12.2010 earlier Writ Petition No. 5017/2012 was filed. The Petitioner respectfully and humbly submit that the delay, if any, caused in filing writ Petition was not deliberate or willful but procedural. The Petitioner was sincerely interested in prosecuting the Writ Petit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

delayed to be filed and it was not within the control of the Petition that the delay could be avoided. Therefore I say that there are no latches in filing the Petition. EXHIBIT 'G' M/S. KINGS FURNITURE - W.P.NO. 5017/2012 Facts relating to delay in filing Writ Petition. Sr. No. Date Events Remarks 1. 28.11.2008 Judgment of MSTT IN Rect. Appln. No. 30 of 2440 2. 05.12.2008 Date of receipt of the MSTT Judgment. By JC(L) 3. 13.02.2009 Date of receipt of the Judgment With record by DC(CM) 4 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ition Submitted to JC(Legal) for approval. 9. 25.08.2009 JC(L) orders DC(CM) to verify the portion in draft containing para 6 having capital letters, correct factually and resubmit. 10. 19.11.2010 Later on after receiving letter from Desk Officer (F. D.) it was found that the submission should have been made to the appellate side, then as per govt.'s letter the required documents for preparation of Draft para were sent to G. P. (Appellate Side) on 2.12.10. 11. 23.11.2010 Date of the reply re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of one year. 16. 27.12.2011 Date on which draft of W. P. Submitted to JC(L) for approval. 17. 09.02.2012 Draft approved by Hon'ble CST 18. 13.02.2012 Approved draft received from Hon'ble CST 19. 21.03.2012 Synopsis recd. From Advocate 20. 30.03.2012 Date of submission of W. P. 5) The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the above explanation is hardly satisfactory, much less reasonable. Reliance is placed upon the affidavit in reply filed to this writ petition and w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

missed on that ground alone. 7) It has been clarified that neither section 5 of the Limitation Act or the rigors of statute of limitation or the principles evolved and referred above can be relaxed merely because the litigant or the petitioner is Government. The Government enjoys no privilege and when it repeatedly blames the system for not deciding cases on time. Just like any other litigant, the Government also floods the courts with unnecessary and frivolous litigations and when it seeks to e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ment and some officials therein sat over the files and till 10th July, 2009. On 10th July, 2009, the reply was received from the Government, after which, on 16th July, 2009, a request was sent to the Government Pleader of the Bombay High Court Original Side for drafting the writ petition. Thereafter, a draft of the writ petition was received on 17th August, 2009 and it is stated that the draft went through several officials and supposedly for their approval. Then, it was realised, not until 19th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version