2014 (9) TMI 1193 - SCH - Customs

Stay of operation of impugned Judgement - HELD THAT - As the respondents have entered caveat, no further notice be issued. There shall be stay of operation of impugned judgment. List after six weeks.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Stay of operation of the impugned judgment and order dated 24.07.2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 416/2014 and 417/2014.
2. Apprehension of serious prejudice if adjudication proceedings continue without the leave of the Court.

Analysis:

1. Stay of Operation of Impugned Judgment:
The Supreme Court, comprising Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri, heard arguments from Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, the learned Attorney General, and Mr. V. Shekhar, the senior counsel for the respondents. Since the respondents had entered a caveat, the Court decided that no further notice needed to be issued. The respondents were given four weeks to file a counter affidavit, with a provision for a rejoinder affidavit within two weeks thereafter. The Court ordered a stay of the operation of the impugned judgment and order dated 24.07.2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 416/2014 and 417/2014. However, Mr. Shekhar, along with Mr. Abhas Misra, expressed concerns about potential prejudice if the adjudication proceedings were to continue. Despite opposition from Mr. Rohtagi, the Court directed that the adjudication proceedings could proceed but should not be finalized without the leave of the Supreme Court. The case was listed for further proceedings after six weeks.

2. Apprehension of Serious Prejudice:
During the proceedings, Mr. Shekhar, representing the respondents, raised an apprehension that allowing the adjudication proceedings to continue unchecked could lead to serious prejudice against them. This concern was presented along with Mr. Abhas Misra, Advocate. In response to this apprehension, Mr. Rohtagi, the learned Attorney General, opposed the suggestion of stopping the proceedings. After hearing arguments from both sides, the Court decided that while the adjudication proceedings could proceed, any finalization of the matter would require the permission or leave of the Supreme Court. This decision aimed to balance the interests of both parties and ensure that no party faced undue prejudice during the legal process.