9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n it came up on 24.11.2010, notice was taken by the Central Government Standing Counsel. An interim stay was granted for a period of two weeks. Subsequently, it was extended from time to time. The respondent has filed a vacate stay application in M.P.No.1 of 2011 together with supporting counter affidavit, dated 14.12.2010. 3.Heard the arguments of Mr.Joseph Prabakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Ravichandra Babu, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. 4.By the impugned order, dated 29.10.2010, the petitioner was informed that the petitioner has filed an appeal arising out of O-in-O No.181/2009, 184/2009, 59/2009 and 51/2010. The CESTAT had not stayed those o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 6.The learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel stated that when the stay application was listed on 6.12.2010 before the CESTAT, the Department was ready to contest the case, but however, the counsel for the petitioner sought for a long adjournment and got the matter adjourned to 16.5.2011. It does not show any bonafide on their part. 7.Notwithstanding the same, the counsel for the petitioner referred to the order passed by this court in W.P.No.13659 of 2010 and stated that the CESTAT must decide the application on merits and till such time, the recovery notice will be stayed. The order does not show that there was any contest and no legal basis was also referred to. At the maximum, the said order can only be a di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seek remedy only before the CESTAT as it has got power to grant an interim order. 11.In the present case, the petitioner has moved the Tribunal with stay application and they cannot use this court as stopgap arrangement for securing an illegal order from this court to postpone the payment. What they could not achieve before the CESTAT, they cannot achieve before this court in an ingenious manner. The power of this court to judicially review the impugned order is extremely limited. This court by the issuance of a direction to the respondent cannot forbear them from exercising their statutory power. Since the petitioner had availed the option of appeal remedy before the CESTAT, they cannot institute a parallel proceedings before this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is the appellate forum." 13.The Supreme Court in Modern Industries Vs. SAIL reported in (2010) 5 SCC 44 held that when a remedy is available under the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993, the High Court cannot be justified in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226. 14.Very recently, the Supreme Court in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 dealt with SARFAESI Act and DRT Act and in paragraphs 55 and 56, it had held as follows: "55.It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and the SARFAE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
