9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he stay order. He also draws our attention to four misc. applications filed by them (Nos. 26971, 27381-27383/2013). 3.1. In the misc. application No. 26971/13, appellant sought modification of stay order and this application was received on 30.5.2013. In this application, appellant submitted that the present case is similar to M/s Sai Services Station Ltd. who is a competitor of the appellant and in their case, unconditional waiver and stay was granted. It is also submitted that appellant is conducting similar line of business and also a dealer of Maruthi vehicles and, therefore, the stay order should be modified. Further, they also enclosed 'dealership agreement' with this misc. application. 3.2. In the misc. application No. 27381/2013 w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd., the very same issue, relying on stay orders passed in M/s Tata Motor Insurance Service Ltd. and M/s Uttam Toyota, was considered and stay was granted. Since appellant's case is similar to Sai Services Station Ltd. case, unconditional stay should have been granted to them. They did not produce 'dealership agreement along with the appeal because they thought that the department have all the records. He submits that the 'dealership agreement' now produced would show that their case is similar to the case of Sai Services Stations Ltd. 6. Learned Authorised Representative (AR) submits that application for modification of stay order should not be entertained since it sets a bad precedence. At the time of hearing, appellant did not produce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal. Further, without producing the 'dealership agreement', the case of Sai Services Station Ltd. was compared to the present case. Without 'dealership agreement' entered into by appellant and M/s Maruthi and without examining the terms and conditions of the agreement, vis-`-vis agreement of Sai Services Station Ltd. it would not be possible to come to a conclusion that the issue involved in the present case is similar to that of Sai Services Station Ltd. as claimed by the appellant now. Normally, this kind of detailed examination would be done only at the time of final hearing since it would require a lot of time for consideration of different provisions of the agreement. What is required to be seen at the time of hearing of stay petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
