2013 (9) TMI 915 - SC - Customs

Condonation of Delay Benefit of Section 14 of Limitation Act - Held that - The appellant was assisted and had the services of the counsel s, who were expert in the central excise and customs cases - They first filed a writ petition, and then without converting it into appeal obtained an interim order - They kept on getting the matter adjourned and thereafter inspite of specific objection taken - they took more than one year and three months, to study the matter to withdraw the appeal - The Supreme Court had strongly deprecated practice of forum shopping - In this case also there was no pleading that the writ petition and thereafter appeal was filed in Delhi High Court, under bonafide belief that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the appellant was pursuing the remedies in wrong court with due diligence - The appellant was not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act - The appeal was barred by limitation by 697 days, which had not been sufficiently explained by the appellant.

Issues:
1. Initial filing of writ petition before Delhi High Court against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Kanpur.
2. Conversion of the writ petition into a statutory appeal under the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Objection raised by the respondent regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.
4. Withdrawal of the appeal by the petitioner with liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court.
5. Filing of a statutory appeal before the Allahabad High Court and application for condonation of delay under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
6. Dismissal of the application for condonation of delay and the appeal by the Allahabad High Court.
7. Bonafide nature of the actions taken by the petitioner in approaching the Delhi High Court and subsequent courts.

Analysis:

1. The Supreme Court observed that the initial filing of the writ petition by the petitioner before the Delhi High Court against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Kanpur was not done in good faith. Despite this, the Delhi High Court converted the writ petition into a statutory appeal under the Customs Act, 1962. Subsequently, the respondent raised an objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, leading to the petitioner withdrawing the appeal with liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court.

2. The petitioner then filed a statutory appeal before the Allahabad High Court and requested condonation of delay under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. However, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and the appeal as time-barred. The court highlighted that the appellant's actions, including filing a writ petition without converting it into an appeal and obtaining interim orders, were not in good faith. The court emphasized the importance of diligently pursuing remedies in the correct court.

3. The Supreme Court agreed with the Allahabad High Court's findings, stating that the filing of the writ petition in the Delhi High Court showed that the petitioner took a chance by approaching a court that did not have territorial jurisdiction in the matter. The Court concurred with the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay and the appeal as time-barred by the Allahabad High Court, emphasizing the lack of bona fide intentions in the petitioner's actions.

4. Ultimately, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court with costs amounting to Rs. 25,000, reinforcing the importance of approaching the appropriate court with genuine intentions and diligently pursuing legal remedies without resorting to forum shopping practices.

← Previous Next →