9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Implementation of Tribunal's order for return of confiscated gold, Delay in implementation, Lack of coordination between authorities, Contempt proceedings, Bona fide actions of the officer
In the case, the appellant filed a miscellaneous application seeking the implementation of the Tribunal's order to return confiscated gold. The respondent had filed a Special Leave Petition challenging the order passed by the High Court, leading to adjournments. The matter was further delayed when the senior counsel sought to withdraw, and the Commissioner failed to appear before the Tribunal. Eventually, the Commissioner claimed the order was implemented, but the Tribunal found the affidavit explaining the delay inadequate. It was revealed that the Special Leave Petition had been dismissed earlier, which was not previously brought to the Tribunal's notice. The Commissioner was directed to file a better affidavit, which was done on a later date. During the proceedings, an amicus curiae highlighted the lack of coordination between authorities as the cause of delay, emphasizing that there was no contumacious conduct justifying contempt proceedings. The Tribunal noted that despite communication from the Commissioner's office, the lack of timely response did not justify the failure to implement the Tribunal's final order. It was emphasized that officers must implement Tribunal orders promptly, and failure to do so may be seen as not bona fide, potentially leading to allegations of contumacious conduct. The Tribunal dropped further proceedings based on the sincere regret expressed by the Commissioner in the delayed implementation of the order, closing the miscellaneous application.
|
