9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .L.T. 505 (Bom), Ocean Centers v. Union of India, 2005 (180) E.L.T. 313 (Bom.); and in the case of Noble Society v. Union of India, 2005 (187) E.L.T. 438 (Bom) wherein this Court has laid down and followed from time to time that during the period of limitation available for filing an appeal, no coercive action should be taken to enforce the order. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Import) in breach of the law laid down by this Court, which was specifically brought to its notice, encashed bank guarantee worth Rs. 14,33,000/- (before expiry of the appeal period) which was furnished by the petitioner by way of security pending adjudication of dispute. 4. When the aforesaid prima facie and wilful disobedience was brought to our notice, by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of itself. Under Art. 226, it has plenary power to issue orders or writs for the enforcement of the fundamental rights and for any other purpose to any person or authority including inappropriate cases any Govt. within its territorial jurisdiction. Under Art. 227 it has jurisdiction over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. It would be anomalous to suggest that a tribunal over which the High Court has superintendence can ignore the law declared by that Court and start proceedings in direct violation of it. If a Tribunal can do so, all the subordinate courts can equally do so, for there is no specific provision, just like in the case of Supreme Court, making the law declared by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The judgment which was delivered did not merely declare the promotions granted to the respondents in the writ petition filed at the previous stage as unconstitutional but also laid down in clear and unequivocal terms that the distribution of appointments, posts or promotions made in the implementation of the communal policy was contrary to the constitutional guarantee of Article 16. The law so declared by this court was binding on the respondent State and its officers and they were bound to follow it whether a majority of the present respondents were parties or not in the previous petition. (Emphasis su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tempt. The analogy of the inferior court's disobedience to the specific order of a superior court also suggests that his conduct falls within the purview of the law of contempt. Just as the disobedience to a specific order of the court undermines the authority and dignity of the court in a particular case, similarly any deliberate and mala fide conduct of not following the law laid down in the previous decision undermines the constitutional authority and respect of the High Court. Indeed, while the former conduct has repercussions on an individual case and on a limited number of persons, the latter conduct has a much wider and more disastrous impact. It is calculated not only to undermine the constitutional authority and respect of the High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the High Court having been pointed out and attention being pointedly drawn to that legal position, in utter disregard of that position, proceedings are initiated, it must be held to be a wilful disregard of the law laid down by the High Court and would amount to civil contempt as defined in S. 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 10. The respondents as directed by us have deposited amount of Rs. 14,33,000/- with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court and also filed an affidavit duly affirmed by Ms. Reena Shetty, Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Imports) tendering her unconditional apology along with copy of the Standing Order No. 7967, dated 26th April, 2007 with covering letter issued by the Commissioner of Customs ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) NEW CUSTOM HOUSE, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI- 01. F.No.S/26-89/2007 Apprg.(General) Date: 26-4-2007 STANDING ORDER 7967/2007 Subject : Enforcement/encashment of Bank Guarantee during pendency of appeal - reg. As per Board's Circular No.788/21/2004 Cx, dated 25-5-2004 coercive measures should not be initiated during the period prescribed in the said circular. It is observed that some officers are enforcing the Bank Guarantees within the appeal period. This matter had come before the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Ocean Driving Center Ltd v. Union of India - 2005 (180) E.L.T. 313 (Bom), Noble Asset Company Ltd. v. Union of India - 2005 (187) E.L.T. 438 (Bom) and M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
