2013 (9) TMI 722 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Petitioner challenged the ex-parte interim order of stay granted Held that - There was no doubt that the appeal had been filed after a lapse of nearly two years - In the normal circumstances, before entertaining such an appeal and granting stay, the other party would be heard - However, as per Regulation 9(f), the Tribunal had power to admit an appeal, keeping open the point of limitation, if it was prima facie satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the delay - The Tribunal had not admitted the appeal - The Tribunal was well advised to hear the other side in a matter like this before granting an ex-parte interim order. The controversy can be resolved by directing the Tribunal to consider the application filed for grant of stay after affording an opportunity to the petitioner and after hearing both parties - It was made clear that the Tribunal shall pass order after hearing both parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case - The apprehension expressed by the petitioner that there will be closure of his shops and that the matter will be precipitated pushing him to serious loss can be addressed by directing the Tribunal to take the same into consideration and pass an expeditious order without loss of much time in the matter. The writ petition is disposed of and a direction was issued to the Tribunal to consider and dispose of the application as far as possible on the next date and that the Tribunal shall desist from continuing the ex-parte interim order without considering the contentions raised by both the parties - Both parties shall not precipitate the matter till an order was passed by the Tribunal.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to ex-parte interim order of stay granted by Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 731/13.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the ex-parte interim order of stay granted by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, arguing that the appeal was filed by the 3rd respondent after a significant delay of nearly two years. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal should have notified them before granting any adverse interim order, especially considering the matter related to the transfer of a license dating back to 2009. The petitioner highlighted their continuous operation of liquor vending business in multiple premises during the period from 2011 to 2013. Allegations of collusion between respondents 3 and 4 were also raised by the petitioner, emphasizing the impact of the interim order on their business operations.

The Senior Counsel for the 3rd respondent supported the impugned order, citing Regulation 9(f) of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 1979, which allows for admission of appeals even after the limitation period if sufficient cause is shown. He referred to a previous court decision to argue that delay condonation is not required before admitting the appeal, and once admitted, the Tribunal can consider applications for stay and issue interim orders. The Senior Counsel mentioned that the appeal was scheduled for hearing the next day and proposed that the writ petition be disposed of, directing the Tribunal to hear both parties on the interim stay application.

The Court acknowledged the delay in filing the appeal but noted that the Tribunal had not yet admitted the appeal. While recognizing the general principle of hearing both parties before granting a stay, the Court referred to Regulation 9(f) allowing for admission of appeals despite delay if sufficient cause is shown. Given that the matter was listed for the next day with both parties willing to present arguments, the Court directed the Tribunal to consider the stay application after hearing both sides and making a decision based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court addressed the petitioner's concerns about potential closure of their shops and loss, emphasizing the need for an expeditious resolution without prolonging the matter.

In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Tribunal to consider and decide on the stay application promptly, ensuring that the ex-parte interim order is not continued without hearing both parties. Both parties were instructed not to escalate the matter until the Tribunal issues a final order, emphasizing the importance of a fair hearing and timely resolution in the ongoing legal dispute.