9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 581X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion furnaces. The ACP of these furnaces was determined provisionally first and subsequently finally. Final Order determining the capacity of induction furnace of these two units were passed on 20/21-3-1998. Against this order both appeals have been filed. The Tribunal by its Final Order No. A/190-91/99-NB, dated 18-3-1999 held that We, therefore agree with the ld. DR that the explanation of the appellant does not inspire any confidence and, we therefore, are not satisfied that the delay is required to be condoned. Accordingly, we dismiss the COD applications and as a consequence, the stay applications and the appeals are also dismissed as time barred. In the mean time, the appellants submitted an application on 1-5-2000 requesting the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst detention of the goods. Ld. Counsels submit that the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Mamuda Khateen v. Beniyan Bibi reported in AIR 1976 Calcutta 415, in para 7 held that It seems to us that when an appeal is barred by limitation and an application is made under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay alongwith the memorandum of appeal, until the application under Section 5 is allowed the appeal cannot be filed or admitted at all. In other words, till a favourable order is made on the application under Section 5 the appeal is non est. In that event, the question of rejecting a memorandum of appeal does not arise at all at this stage. Ld. Counsels, therefore submit that in their case the appeal was non ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers v. The State of U.P. and Others [1962 SCR 574]. They submit that in this case the Apex Court observed that Even so the general principle of res judicata, which has its foundation on considerations of public policy, namely, (1) that binding decisions of courts of competent jurisdiction should be final and (2) that no person should be made to face the same kind of litigation twice over, is not a mere technical rule, that that cannot be applied to petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Apex Court, therefore held that where the petition under Article 226 is considered on merits as a contested matter and dismissed by the High Court, the decision pronounced is binding on the parties unless modified or reversed by appeal or other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er passed the final order determining the ACP of the furnaces under his Order dated 20/21-3-1998 the appellants came up in appeal before the Tribunal. He submits that this Tribunal held that there was no sufficient reason to condone the delay as the appeals were filed much beyond permitted time, the delay in filing the appeal was not condoned and consequently the stay petition and the appeals were dismissed. He submits that on the same issue the appellants preferred a further appeal by resorting to going to the High Court and obtaining orders without stating the full facts. Ld. JDR, therefore prays that the appeals may be rejected. 7. We have heard the rival submissions. We note that the issue in this case was fixing of annual capacity of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
