9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nge Rule 5 of the Hot Re-rolling Mills Annual Capacity Determination (Amendment) Rules, 1997. The further prayer is made to hold Rule 96-ZP(3) of the Rules, 1997, to be unlawful as it is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 3A(3) of the Act, 1944. As a consequence of quashing of the Notification, restore the benefits given to the petitioner under Notification Nos.49/97 and 50/97 dated 1.8.1997. It is admitted by the parties that the controversy raised herein, was considered by different High Courts. The Karnataka High Court had decided the issue by a detailed judgment in the case of Meenakshi Steel Re-Rolling Mills v. Union of India 2015 (330) E.L.T. 138 (Kar.). The challenge to Rule 5 of the Rules, 1997, showing it to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the judgment in the case of Meenakshi Steel (supra), it may be observed that the outcome of the pending SLP before the Apex Court would apply to these cases also so as to avoid multiplicity of litigation. If this Court takes a view similar to what has been taken by the Karnataka High Court, the petitioner would be required to file an appeal before the Apex Court, multiplying the litigation, which otherwise can be saved by accepting the prayer made above and if such a direction is given, the petitioner would be satisfied with it. The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submits that the issue having been decided by the Karnataka High Court, and according to him even by Madras High Court, the judgments of those Courts need to be applied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the petitioner is fair enough to state that the issue having been considered and decided by the Karnataka High Court regarding same challenge, this Court may apply the said judgment. To avoid multiplicity of litigation, the final judgment of the Apex Court on the issue in the pending appeal in the case of Bhuwalka Steel (supra) be ordered to be applied. If the appeal therein is allowed by the Apex Court, this writ petition should be treated to have been allowed automatically, though at present he would be treated to have been dismissed in reference to the judgment of Karnataka High Court. The Revenue has agreed to the aforesaid. In view of the above, the writ petition is ordered to be governed by the judgments of the Karnataka High Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
