9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (10) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... importing rough diamonds and exporting cut and polished diamonds. The petitioner is an Export House and was entitled to an Export House Certificate for the year 1981-82. The export house certificate was issued to the petitioner with validity up to June 30, 1984 after the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 1274 of 1982 complaining against the refusal of the appellants to issue such certificate. The petitioner was entitled to an additional licence as an Export House Certificate holder and accordingly made an application on May 19, 1983. The application was not granted on the ground that it was defective. The petitioner was also entitled to REP licences under the relevant import policy and the petitioner, accordingly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me up before the Division Bench, the Counsel for Union of India remained absent, with the result that the motion was dismissed for default. The Union of India thereupon took out Notice of Motion 464 of 1987 for restoration of the earlier motion. The Division Bench consisting of Mr. Justice S. K. Desai and Mr. Justice Agarwal heard Notice of Motion No. 464 of 1987 and restored the earlier motion by order dated March 11, 1987. The Division Bench then considered the Motion taken out by the Union of India for condoning the delay in filing the appeal and motion was dismissed on the ground that no cause was made out for condonation of delay. 3. Against the order passed by the Division Bench, the Union of India approached the Supreme Court by fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ahagirdar. The order of the learned Single Judge is under challenge. 4. Mr. Bhabha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India, submitted that the learned Single Judge proceeded on an erroneous assumption that the order of Mr. Justice Jahagirdar was confirmed by Division Bench of this Court on merits. Mr. Bhabha urged that the Division Bench of this Court declined to condone the delay in filing the appeal against the judgment of Mr. Justice Jahagirdar and, therefore, the merits. of the claim was not gone into. The submission of Mr. Bhabha is correct. We have perused the order passed by Mr. Justice Desai on March 11, 1987 and it leaves no manner of doubt that the Division Bench did not go into the merits of the claim of the Union ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision of Mr. Justice Jahagirdar and failed to get the delay condoned and get the appeal registered. Once, the Division Bench declined to condone the delay in entertaining the appeal, then the decision of Mr. Justice Jahagirdar acquires finality and it is not permissible to reopen the decision merely on the ground that the law laid down by the Supreme Court subsequently is in conflict with certain directions given in the decision. In case every decision recorded by this Court is to be re-opened on this count, then the principle of finality would lose all its meaning. The decision of Mr. Justice Jahagirdar was in accordance with law and was prevalent at the relevant time and it is not permissible to re-open that decision under the guise of is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
