9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (6) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eeking for stay of enforcement of dues adjudicated. 2. Shri K.K. Bhatia, Jt. CDR appearing for the revenue, submitted that all the disputes between the Public Sector Undertakings and the department pending before the Tribunal should not be heard, till the Committee of Secretaries gives clearance for pursuing these litigations. He read out the relevant portion of the Supreme Court s directive and submitted that the Committee of Secretaries has already been set up and it is for the Public Sector Undertakings to move the Committee through their concerned Secretary, having administrative control over these undertakings for settlement of the disputes with the department or on failure of settlement, to obtain a clearance from that Committee for proceeding further with the litigation before the Tribunal. They contended that the directive of the Supreme Court is to all the Courts and the Tribunals and in the interest of judicial discipline and decorum, this directive should be respected. It is not a matter open for giving legal interpretation of these directives because the directives of the Supreme Court are not in the nature of case law or a judgment. Hence, the directive, as a whole, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court directive; (v) The statute casts a responsibility on the Tribunal to decide an appeal brought forth by the appellants. The Tribunal cannot avoid to decide all these appeals when the appeals are so brought forth as laid down in the statute; (vi) The directive given by the Hon ble Supreme Court cannot be taken to be a law pronounced under Article 141 of the Constitution. Hence, such a directive cannot be binding as a case law; (vii) Referring to the Supreme Court directive, it was pleaded that the first part of the directive expresses happiness about the Cabinet Secretary having taken the appropriate initiative as per their order dt. 11-9-1991. Second part of the directive deals with the Government s eagerness to resolve amicably by mutual consultations all the disputes between the Government and the Public Sector Undertakings without recourse to litigation. The third part deals with the directive to the Govt. of India to set up a Committee to monitor disputes and to ensure that no litigation comes to the Court or to the Tribunal. The fourth part indicates that it shall be the obligation on every Court and Tribunal, where such a dispute has arisen hereafter, to demand th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rterly report about the functioning of this system to be furnished to the Registry beginning from 1st January, 1992. Our direction may be communicated to every High Court for information of all the courts subordinate to them." 7. From the above it is clear that the Supreme Court, in the public interest of saving public money and time is keen to settle the disputes between the Public Sector Undertakings and the Govt. departments amicably by a process of arbitration and settlement from the appointed Committee of Secretaries and in pursuance of this desired objective, the directive has been given by the Supreme Court not only to the Govt. but also to the Courts and the Tribunals. It is needless for us to go into the question as to whether this could be construed to be a Case Law and could be interpreted, as to whether they are applicable to the future disputes or to the disputes already pending. Any such clarification could only come from the Supreme Court, to which the parties can approach, if they are so advised. The directives are quite clear and simple that all the disputes between the Public Sector Undertakings and the departments of the Govt. are required to be settled throu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remedy of filing appeal. It is open for the Public Undertaking to file appeals for complying with the statutory time limit. But they are to approach the Committee of Secretaries, notwithstanding their appeals before us. This is what we would understand from the Supreme Court directive. Revenue also being a party to the directive, should not resort to coercive measures till the settlement by the appointed Committee of Secretaries. With these observations, we dispose of this preliminary issue raised. Sd/- (R. Jayaraman) Member (Technical) Sd/- (S.L. Peeran) Member (Judicial) 10. [Per: G.P. Agarwal]. - I have had the advantage of going through the Order proposed by my learned brother Shri R. Jayaraman (Technical Member). 11. At the outset, I find that different Benches have taken a different view relating to the controversy in hand. In the case of Digvijay Textile Mills (N.T.C.) Another v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I Vadodara, 1992 (59) E.L.T. 66 (Tri.) = 1992 (19) E.T.R. 322, the West Regional Bench of this Tribunal at Bombay had taken a view that in view of the direction given by the Apex Court in the case of M/s. O.N.G.C. v. Collector of Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal which are quite substantial in number, I feel it expedient in the interest of justice that papers may be placed before the Hon ble President for constituting a Larger Bench to decide the controversy in hand keeping in view the aforesaid conflicting decisions of the Tribunal, I order accordingly. Sd/- (G.P. Agarwal) Judicial Member Majority Order 14. In terms of the majority order, the preliminary issue raised in the above appeals is disposed of in the following terms - (i) In terms of the Supreme Court s directive in the case of ONGC v. Union of India, the appeals of Public Undertakings are to be heard by a Committee of Secretaries constituted by the Cabinet Secretary, notwithstanding the appeals pending in the Tribunal; (ii) The Revenue also being a party to the directive, should not resort to coercive measures till the settlement by the appointed Committee of Secretaries. Sd/- (R. Jayaraman) Member (Technical) Sd/- (S,L. Peeran) Member (Judicial) 15. I am signing the majority view recorded by the Ld. Judicial Member and concurred by the Ld. Technical Member with reservation as in my considered opinion it does not flow from the order written by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
