2008 (1) TMI 159 - HC - Central Excise

Judicial discipline - Once the law was declared and the judgment of this(HC) Court was upheld by SC, it is the duty of Revenue in every matter (which came up before them and to which the judgment applied) to have suo-moto applied the same without driving the party to move to HC - If the application is allowed the relief what the petitioners are entitled to should be granted immediately - pending applications shall be disposed off within not less than six weeks from today

Summary

Issues:
Revenue's appeal dismissal by Supreme Court, duty of respondents to apply judgment, imposition of exemplary cost, disposal of pending applications within six weeks, payment of costs to petitioners if applications not disposed of.

Analysis:
The High Court of Bombay addressed multiple issues in this judgment. Firstly, the Court noted that the matter at hand was previously covered by a judgment in Arviva Industries (I) Ltd., Vs. Union of India, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in Union of India V/s. Arviva Industries (I) Ltd. The Court emphasized the duty of the respondents to apply the law declared in this judgment to all relevant matters without requiring the parties to approach the Court. The Court even considered imposing exemplary costs on the officer concerned for necessitating the petitioners to move the Court and incur costs. However, the respondents assured the Court that they would dispose of the applications promptly, within a period of six weeks.

Furthermore, the Court made the rule absolute in terms of the prayer clause, directing that the pending applications be disposed of within six weeks. It was specified that if the applications were not disposed of within the stipulated time frame, the respondents would be required to pay costs to the petitioners, quantified at Rs. 50,000. The Court explicitly instructed the respondents to dispose of the pending applications in accordance with the law as declared by the High Court and approved by the Supreme Court. Additionally, the Court emphasized that if the applications were allowed, the relief entitled to the petitioners should be granted without delay.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to established legal precedents, ensuring timely disposal of applications, and the consequences of failing to comply with the directives of the Court. The Court's decision aimed to streamline the process, uphold the rule of law, and protect the rights of the parties involved in the legal proceedings.