TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Union of India) preferred a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal before the Supreme Court. The Petition was admitted and numbered as Civil Appeal No. 2473/2007. 2 . In the appeal, it was contended by the Union of India (and accepted by the Supreme Court) that the interim order passed by this Court was incorrect particularly when an important question of law regarding jurisdiction of the Settlement Commissioner (sic) was involved in the pending writ petition filed by the Department. 3. Accepting this contention, the Supreme Court modified the interim order and also requested this Court by an order dated 11th May, 2007 [2007 (213) E.L.T. 338 (S.C.)] to expeditiously hear and dispose of this writ petition preferably within six months. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'ble the Chief Justice adjourned the matter because learned counsel for the Union of India had expressed some difficulty in going on with the matter. The matter was then adjourned to 6th November, 2007 for arguments. 8 . On 6th November, 2007, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India stated that 'the petitioners in this case do not have a strong case on the issue with regard to the jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission to entertain the settlement petition.' This submission, it may be noted, was completely contrary to what was stated before the Supreme Court and accepted by the Supreme Court, namely, that an important question of law regarding the jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission was involved in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Union of India had agreed to file a synopsis of the case on or before 17th August, 2007 but it was actually filed only on 20th December, 2007, more than four months beyond the time prescribed. (3) The Union of India has asked for an adjournment apart from today on 11th October, 2007 and 6th November, 2007. (4) In spite of the fact that there is a request made by the Supreme Court for having the matter disposed of expeditiously, the Union of India does not appear to be keen on proceeding with the final hearing of the case so that it could be disposed of expeditiously. This is quite clear from the fact that today the learned Additional Solicitor General, who is supposed to argue the matter, is not even in Delhi and is busy in the Bom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
