2018 (5) TMI 523 - HC - Customs

Transferring the customs cases to Mumbai Bench of CESTAT - Jurisdiction to issue notice - unwanted strike by the advocates - Held that - ad-interim relief granted. When there prima facie appears to be lack of jurisdiction to pass such an order, we are inclined to issue Notice returnable on 13.06.2018. Ms. Trusha K.Patel, learned advocate, waives service of notice on behalf of respondent no.1. - there exists lack of jurisdiction in respondent no.2 in passing impugned decision - Direct service permitted today.

Summary

Issues: Urgency in circulating the matter, lack of jurisdiction in the order passed by Respondent No. 2, reliance on a previous court decision, ad-interim relief, lack of strike situation, issuance of notice.

In this case, the petitioners sought permission to urgently circulate the matter due to an order passed by Respondent No.2, which they claimed was without jurisdiction and unjustified, causing tremendous hardship. The Court granted permission for urgent circulation and scheduled the matter for later. The petitioners' counsel highlighted the unwarranted nature of the order and referenced a decision by the High Court of Madras, emphasizing specific observations. The petitioners argued that the issue was exaggerated, with no strike situation warranting disapproval from judicial authorities.

The Court, after hearing the petitioners' counsel, found prima facie evidence of lack of jurisdiction in the order passed by Respondent No.2. The Court expressed confusion over the approach taken in the impugned order, which involved marking copies to various judicial authorities and courts. Consequently, the Court decided to issue a Notice returnable on a specified date, with the respondent's advocate waiving the service of notice. Ad-interim relief was granted until the returnable date in accordance with specific terms.

Before concluding the order, the Court noted the petitioners' contention that there was no strike situation deserving disapproval from judicial authorities. The Court clarified that its decision was based on the prima facie lack of jurisdiction displayed by Respondent No.2 in the impugned decision. Direct service was permitted on the same day as part of the order.