9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter is remitted to the first respondent with a direction to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from today after affording an opportunity of being heard to the counsel for petitioner. - 22166 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 6-10-2008 - Ghulam Mohammed and P.V. Sanjay Kumar, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri S.C. Kodanda Ram, Counsel, for the Petitioner. Shri A. Rajashekar Reddy, ASG, for the Respondent. [Order per : Ghulam Mohammed, J.]. - This writ petition is filed seeking to quash, by way of Certiorari, the order passed by the first respondent in Order-in-Appeal No. 56/2008(V-II) CUS., dated 22-9-2008. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : Petitioner is a comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner's banker to encash the bank guarantee. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 6956 of 2008. This Court by the order dated 31-3-2008 disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondents therein not to give effect or take any coercive steps, in any manner, whatsoever, in pursuance of the said orders passed in Original No. 2 of 2008 dated 17-3-20078 till 27-5-2008, including the encashment of the bank guarantee. Thereafter, the petitioner company preferred appeal No. 23/2008 (V-II)-CUS. before the first respondent and also filed a stay application. The second respondent, being aware of the fact that an appeal was preferred and a stay application was also filed before the first respondent, issued a notice on 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g to the petitioner passed the impugned order. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for petitioner and Sri A. Rajasekhara Reddy, the learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondents. 4. The learned Counsel for petitioner has drawn our attention to Section 128A of the Act and contended that the first respondent has failed to comply with the procedure contemplated in Section 128A of the Act and thereby failed to comply with the principles of natural justice and passed the impugned order without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner even though it expressed its desire to be heard. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for respondents contended that the first respondent has duly intimated the date of hearing of the appeal and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
