9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Modification of a previous order under Customs Act, 1962 based on non-disclosure of facts in a writ petition leading to an interim order. Analysis: The judgment concerns an application seeking modification of an order dated 7th February, 2003, which stayed an earlier order releasing impugned currency to the respondent under the Customs Act, 1962. The applicant argued that they were not given notice of the revision filed against the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) order, leading to the release of the currency on payment of fines. It was revealed that the respondent had filed a Writ Petition seeking direction for the release of the currency, which was granted an interim order on 11th December, 2002. The petitioner filed the present application on 28th January, 2003, concealing the fact of the pending Writ Petition, which was considered deliberate non-disclosure by the Court. The Court emphasized the importance of full disclosure in legal proceedings, citing the Supreme Court's stance on the principle of "finality of litigation" and the necessity for litigants to approach the court with clean hands. The Court held that obtaining orders through fraud or concealment of material facts is impermissible and constitutes an abuse of the legal process. The petitioner's deliberate suppression of the respondent's prior Writ Petition and the interim order obtained therein was deemed as an abuse of process, leading to the recall of the interim order issued on 7th February, 2003. The judgment underscores that suppression of material facts is sufficient grounds to deny discretionary relief in legal matters. Parties are obligated to disclose all relevant facts that could impact the case's outcome, and failure to do so amounts to an abuse of the court's process. The Court concluded that the petitioner's intentional concealment of the respondent's prior legal actions warranted the recall of the interim order. Consequently, the application was allowed, and the interim order issued on 7th February, 2003, was revoked. The case was listed for further hearing on 15th July, 2003.
|
