9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (6) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Motion on May 6, 1992 are not in dispute and are required to be briefly stated to appreciate the claim of the respondents. The petitioner No. 1 Company filed Writ petition No. 853 of 1981 seeking refund of duty recovered by respondents without any authority of law. The petition was disposed of by judgment of Division Bench dated July 9, 1991 and the relief sought by the petitioners was granted. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visions of the Act. Long after introduction of Section 11B of the Act, the respondents have taken out the present Notice of Motion on May 6, 1992 seeking variation or modification of the order passed by the Division Bench in the light of the provisions of Section 11B of the Act. Shri Desai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that in view of the enactment of the statu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally disposed of on 10-8-1984, thereafter nothing remained pending before the High Court. No miscellaneous application could be filed in the writ petition to revive proceedings in respect of subsequent events after two years. If the respondent was aggrieved by the notice dated 29-1-1986 he could have filed a separate petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to have any meaning." Shri Parekh submits that the Supreme Court has held that the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application as no proceedings were pending. It was urged that when the proceedings were terminated by final disposal of writ petition, it is not open for the Court to re-open the proceedings by means of a miscellaneous application. 4. Shri Desai submitted that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
