9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r>D.A. Mehta and H.N. Devani, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Ms. Manisha Lavkumar Shah, Standing Counsel, for the Petitioner. S/Shri N.K. Khare with C.Z. Sankhla, for the Respondent. [Order per : H.N. Devani, J. (Oral)]. - This petition has been filed with the following prayers : "8.The petitioners respectfully pray that : (a)Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow the present petition. (b) Be pleased to issue a writ of prohibition or any appropriate writ, order or direction, inter alia prohibiting the further proceedings in R.P. No. A-1258 in O.A. No. 40 of 2001 pending before the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad. (c) Be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dabad in R.P. No. A-1258 in O.A. No. 40 of 2001; (g) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of the present petition be pleased to stay all the further proceedings of R.P. No. A-1258 in O.A. No. 40 of 2001 which is now scheduled for further orders on 19-6-2008; (h)Be pleased to grant any other and further relief as the nature and circumstances of the case may require". 2. The facts stated briefly are that respondent No. 3 M/s. Parshwanath Industries was engaged in the manufacture of Organic Chemicals falling under Chapter-29 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and was also availing of Modvat facility. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-III passed an order dated 6-12-2000 imposing penalty of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the details of encumbrances to which the property was liable, it was mentioned 'not known'. Since in the advertisement the extent of value of outstanding government dues had not been mentioned, an application came to be made to the Recovery Officer to issue another advertisement cancelling the earlier tender notice. The Recovery Officer vide order dated 15-5-2008 rejected the objection raised by the Central Excise Department and also called upon the concerned officer who had signed the objections as to why action should not be taken against him under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have moved the present petition seeking the reliefs noted hereinabove. 4.Heard learned Advocates for the respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the first part of the order is concerned, the order made by the Recovery Officer is in consonance with the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Sicom Limited (supra), wherein it has been held that a debt which is secured or which by reason of the provisions of a statute becomes the first charge over the property having regard to the plain meaning of Article 372 of the Constitution of India must be held to prevail over the crown debt which is an unsecured one. 8. Insofar as the challenge to initiation of contempt proceedings against the Officer who had signed the objection is concerned, the contempt proceedings per se are personal in nature. None of the petitioners herein, who are parties in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
