9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 97 - HC - CustomsValidity of the notifications dated 13 January, 2012 and 19 January, 2017 - Refund of anti-dumping duty paid by the petitioner in relation to the imports of the petitioner - whether a belated prayer to assail the notifications in question would be maintainable? - whether under the grab of assailing such notifications, a prayer for money claim ought to be entertained? - period from 13 January, 2012 to 12 January, 2018 - demand for justice - Doctrine of Delay and Laches - cause of action to maintain a Writ Petition - Maintainability of a money claim in a Writ Petition. Maintainability for issuance of a writ of mandamus on the touchstone of demand for justice - HELD THAT - There was no prior representation made by the petitioner to the appropriate department of Government of India, pointing out any illegality on the notifications, much less of making a refund application which in the normal course of law a prudent litigant and that too an importer would follow - In FEDERATION OF RETAIL TRADERS WELFARE ASSOCIATE AND ORS VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS 2022 (2) TMI 1420 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , the Division Bench of this Court has observed that it seems to have become a habit in this Court to seek a high prerogative remedy of a mandamus without averring that the petitioner has made a demand for justice and the same having been denied or has even not made a demand at all, let alone explaining how the case fits in the few limited and well-known exceptions to the general rule. Doctrine of Delay and Laches - HELD THAT - In Union of India and Others Vs. N. Murugesan and Others 2021 (10) TMI 1375 - SUPREME COURT the principles of delay, laches and acquiescence were succinctly explained in which the Court observed that the principles governing delay, laches, and acquiescence are overlapping and interconnected on many occasions, however, they have their distinct characters and distinct elements. It was observed that one can say that delay is the genus to which laches and acquiescence are species. It was observed that laches might be called a genus to a species by name acquiescence. However, there may be a case where acquiescence is involved, but not laches. These principles are common law principles, and perhaps one could identify that these principles find place in various statutes which restrict the period of limitation and create non-consideration of condonation in certain circumstances. It was further observed that such principles are bound to be applied by way of practice requiring prudence of the Court than of a strict application of law. The observations of the Supreme Court on delay and laches would aid the conclusion which we intend to derive in the present proceedings so as to non-suit the petitioner applying the principles of delay and laches. Whether in view of a prospective decision of the Supreme Court, a cause of action can arise to maintain a Writ Petition? - HELD THAT - There are no manner of doubt that such contention of the petitioner cannot deserve any acceptance to hold that merely because the Supreme Court prospectively pronouncing such decision, the petition can have any cause of action. Maintainability of a money claim in a Writ Petition - HELD THAT - The principles of law necessarily are required to be applied from the point of view of the limitation as prescribed by law, applicable in respect of any money claim. The writ court cannot be oblivious to such basic requirement a litigant needs to fulfill in undertaking its usual scrutiny of the proceedings. It would certainly not be swayed away or blindfolded for the fact that the party invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is akin to a party in position of a plaintiff in a civil suit when the prayer is of a money claim - Certainly, even assuming that the petitioner in the present case has paid the duty under any mistake (when in fact it is not so) in the present facts, the petition would not be maintainable. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability for issuance of a writ of mandamus on the touchstone of "demand for justice". 2. Doctrine of Delay and Laches. 3. Whether a prospective decision of the Supreme Court can give rise to a cause of action to maintain a Writ Petition. 4. Maintainability of a money claim in a Writ Petition. Summary: I. Maintainability for issuance of a writ of mandamus on the touchstone of "demand for justice": The Court observed that the petition lacked the basic requirement for maintaining a writ of mandamus, namely, a request for demand for justice. The petitioner had not made any prior representation to the appropriate department pointing out any illegality in the notifications or making a refund application. It is well settled that a prayer for a writ of mandamus is not maintainable in the absence of an enforceable legal right and a legally protected right. The Court referenced the Supreme Court's rulings in Mani Subrat Jain & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. and Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. & Ors. vs. Union of India, which emphasize that a distinct demand for justice and its refusal must precede the filing of a petition for mandamus. II. Doctrine of Delay and Laches: The Court held that the petition is completely barred by delay and laches. The principles of law in this regard are well settled, as stated in Shiv Dass Vs. Union of India and Others, where the Supreme Court held that delay or laches is a factor to be borne in mind by the High Courts when exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court should not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy as it may cause confusion, public inconvenience, and injustice to third parties. The Court also referenced the Supreme Court's rulings in cases like Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Others vs. T.T. Murali Babu, which emphasize that delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant and does not foster the cause of justice. III. Whether a prospective decision of the Supreme Court can give rise to a cause of action to maintain a Writ Petition: The Court rejected the petitioner's contention that the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India and Ors. Vs. Kumho Petrochemicals Company Limited and Ors. gave rise to a cause of action. The Court stated that accepting such a contention would mean that any decision by the Supreme Court would unsettle concluded actions and bring about chaos and confusion. The Court held that the petitioner's argument had no merit and could not be accepted. IV. Maintainability of a money claim in a Writ Petition: The Court observed that the primary intention of the petitioner was to seek a refund of anti-dumping duty paid during the period 13 January 2012 to 12 January 2018, under the guise of challenging the notifications. The Court held that a writ petition for a simplicitor money claim is not ordinarily maintainable, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Suganmal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. The Court also noted that the petitioner had not demonstrated an undisputed money claim against the respondents or that the money was withheld without authority in law. The Court concluded that the petition was not maintainable as a money claim. Conclusion: The petition was rejected on the grounds of lack of demand for justice, delay and laches, lack of a new cause of action from the Supreme Court's decision, and the non-maintainability of a money claim in a writ petition.
|
