9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ible in law as they have not filed any appeal against the intended respondents. Moreover, they have filed the main appeal against the main appellant, i.e., M/s. Chokhani Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd., in April, 2008 and they have made this application in November, 2010 - no appeal has been filed against the intended respondents, which are intended to be impleaded as respondents - change of cause title is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as Pvt. Ltd. 8. Prem Preet Textile Industries Ltd. 9. Raghav Synthetics 10. R.K. Synthetics Fibres Pvt. Ltd. 11. Eve Fabrics Ltd. 12. Charan Spinners Pvt. Ltd. 13. Harakchand Co. 14. Balaji Cement Corporation 15. Devarshee Textile Ltd. 16. Sampurna Laxmi Spinning Mills Ltd. 17. Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. 18. Arihant Chemicals 19. Dhananiwa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the main respondent. When they realised the mistake, they moved an application to include all the above 37 as respondents in their appeal. To support his contention, he placed reliance on certain case laws, namely, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. CCE, Calcutta reported in 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1956, CCE, Jalandhar v. Prince Agro Allied Industries reported in 2008 (232) E.L.T. 649 (Tri.-Del.) = 2010 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants have chosen a route to implead the respondents by this application as respondents to their main appeal which is not permissible in law as they have not filed any appeal against the intended respondents. Moreover, they have filed the main appeal against the main appellant, i.e., M/s. Chokhani Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd., in April, 2008 and they have made this application in November, 2010. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
