2019 (11) TMI 3 - HC - Customs

Non-compliance with the order of this Court dated 27 June 2017 - order dated 27 June 2017 was not being implemented earlier by the Respondent Nos.2 and 3, on the ground that they had filed an application for review bearing Review Petition (Stamp) No.23342 of 2018 in Writ Petition No.6472 of 2017 - HELD THAT - The only justification for not complying with the order dated 27 June 2017 of this Court urged by Mr.Jetly on instructions is that they are in process of filing an appeal to Hon ble Supreme Court. However no stay of the order dated 27 June 2017 of this Court is obtained. Thus duty bound to honour and comply with the order dated 27 June 2017 of this Court. As a matter of last chance we direct the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to comply with the order of this Court dated 27 June 2017 within a period of three weeks from today. It is made clear that in case this order is not complied by the next date, we may be compelled to initiate action against Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in our contempt jurisdiction in accordance with law. Stand over to 8 November 2019.

Summary

Issues: Compliance with court order, Amendment of petition

Compliance with Court Order:
The petitioner filed a petition due to the respondents' non-compliance with the court's order dated 27 June 2017. The court had previously directed the respondents to comply within eight weeks, but they failed to do so. The respondents had filed a review petition, which was dismissed in August 2019. Despite this, they still did not comply with the court's order. The respondents claimed they were in the process of filing an appeal to the Supreme Court, but as no stay order was obtained, they were obligated to honor and comply with the court's directive. The court issued a final directive for compliance within three weeks, warning of potential contempt action if not adhered to.

Amendment of Petition:
The petitioner sought to amend the petition to include the names of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who were currently only described by their designations in the petition. The court granted leave for the amendment, specifying a deadline for the same and dispensing with re-verification. The amended petition was to be served upon the respondents.

The judgment highlighted the importance of complying with court orders and the consequences of failing to do so, emphasizing the need for timely adherence to judicial directives. The court's firm stance on ensuring compliance underscored the significance of upholding the rule of law and respecting judicial decisions.