9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Implementation of impugned order, delay in implementation, condonation of delay, dismissal of customs Act case.
Implementation of impugned order: The appeal pertains to an impugned order dated 1-7-2003, which the Respondents sought to be implemented. Despite reminders, the order was not implemented until December 2004, well beyond the two-week period stipulated by the Court in August 2004. The appellant's counsel argued that a certified copy of the order was not provided promptly, but it was revealed that a request for the same had been made earlier. The Court noted the appellant's inaction despite being aware of the order, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Delay in implementation: The appellant failed to implement the impugned order within the specified timeline, causing the Respondents to file a petition seeking implementation. The delay persisted despite repeated reminders from the Respondents, indicating the appellant's awareness of the order. The Court highlighted the lack of satisfactory grounds for condoning the delay, ultimately resulting in the dismissal of the application. Condonation of delay: The appellant's application for condonation of delay was dismissed due to the absence of compelling reasons to justify the delay in implementing the order. The Court emphasized the appellant's prolonged inaction despite being aware of the order and the repeated representations made by the Respondents, leading to the dismissal of the application. Dismissal of customs Act case: Following the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay, the customs Act case No. 5/2004 was also dismissed by the Court. The dismissal was a direct consequence of the failure to provide satisfactory grounds for condoning the delay in implementing the impugned order, highlighting the importance of timely compliance with court directives.
|
