TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt, even though the same was made at the admission stage - the properties of the writ petitioner were already under attachment from the year 2011 onwards and such properties were brought for public auction as early as on 28.02.2018 and the same was purchased by a successful bidder on 16.03.2018 and in whose favour, a delivery order has also been issued on 20.03.2018, we do not find any reason or justification to sustain the interim order of stay granted by the writ Court. The interim order of stay granted by the writ Court is set aside - appeal allowed. - W.A.(MD)No.709 of 2018, C.M.P(MD)No.4075 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 18-6-2018 - K. Ravichandrabaabu And T. Krishnavalli, JJ. For the Appellants : Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan For the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the properties belonging to the writ petitioner was already under attachment as early as in the year 2011 itself and consequent upon such attachment, e-auction was conducted and third party successful bidder has also emerged on 16.03.2018. He further submitted that a delivery order has been issued in the name of the successful bidder on 20.03.2018. Thus, he submitted that suppressing all those facts, the writ petition has been filed before this Court only to get an interim order, so as to prolong the proceedings one way or other. He further submitted that when the writ petition itself ought not to have been entertained, granting of interim order itself is erroneous. In support of such submission, he relied on a recent decision of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, they have chosen to keep quit for seven years and suddenly approached this Court now and filed the writ petition, when the respondents brought the properties of the writ petitioner for public auction. 8.Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the petitioner was not aware of the order impugned in the writ petition, we are not inclined to accept such contention. The averment made at paragraph 9 of the affidavit would only indicate that such order was only not brought to the knowledge of the higher management and not that the said order was not at all within the knowledge of the writ petitioner. In fact, in the very same paragraph, it is stated that the impugned order itself could not be traced and wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vailable under the relevant statute, filing of the writ petition cannot be entertained, more particularly, in fiscal matters. At this juncture, it is useful to refer to the following decisions:- 1) M/s.Nivaram Pharma Private Limited rep.by its Director Sardarmal M.Chordia, Madras -vs- The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Regional Bench, Madras and others reported in (2005) 2 MLJ 246(DB) 2) United Bank of India -vs- Satyawati Tondon and others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 3) Raj Kumar Shivhare -vs- Assistant Director, directorate of Enforcement and Another reported in (2010) 4 SCC 772. 4) Metal Weld Electrodes -vs- CESTAT, Chennai reported in 2014 (299) ELT 3 DB. 10.When such being the positio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taking the loan, but retains its character of public money given in a fiduciary capacity as entrustment by the public. Timely repayment also ensures liquidity to facilitate loan to another in need, by circulation of the money and cannot be permitted to be blocked by frivolous litigation by those who can afford the luxury of the same. The caution required, as expressed in Satyawati Tandon [United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, (2010)8 SCC 110 : (2010)3 SCC (Civ) 260] , has also not been kept in mind before passing the impugned interim order:- 46. It must be remembered that stay of an action initiated by the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities for recovery of taxes, cess, fees, etc. seriously impedes execution of projects ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned interference. 11.Considering the above stated law laid down by the Apex Court and considering the fact that the writ petitioner has chosen to challenge the Order-in-Original after a period of seven years and considering the fact that the same was entertained by granting an interim order without assigning any reason, we are fully satisfied that the appellants have made out a case to interfere with the order passed by the writ Court, even though the same was made at the admission stage. Normally, we would have directed the appellants to raise all these points and file vacate stay petition before the writ Court. However, under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we are not inclined to do so, more particularly, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
