9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance of notices to the respondents, on 7.3.2011- Held that:- In given circumstances, it would not be appropriate for this Court to entertain the writ petition and grant the relief. Therefore, writ petition is not maintainable and is dismissed. - Writ Petition No.1678 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 25-1-2012 - MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN, J. For petitioner : M/s.L.Maithili and Associates For res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts, on 7.3.2011. While so, the second respondent is proceeding against the petitioner, based on the order passed by the CESTAT, Chennai. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. The Registry, after scrutinising the records of the case, had returned the papers for clarification as to how ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to the order passed by the CESTAT, Chennai. 6. It is an admitted fact that an appeal had been preferred by the petitioner before the Supreme Court, in C.A.No.2202 of 2011, challenging the Final Order No.1265 to 1267 of 2010, dated 14.12.2010, passed by the CESTAT, Chennai. The Supreme Court had also passed an order, on 7.3.2011, to issue notice to the respondents therein. While so, it would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
