9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irst instance and thereafter considered the same on merits by answering the same one way or the other. This is said for the reason that when the appeals were admitted and the main appeals are pending adjudication before the High Court, it was unnecessary for the High Court to have passed detailed reasons as to why the aforesaid two substantial questions of law would not arise for consideration, at the stage of admission. No prejudice would have been caused to any of the parties if the substantial questions of law, as raised by the appellant, had been considered and answered by the High Court on merits at the time of final adjudication of the appeals. Sometimes substantial questions of law may have a bearing on each other and if a particular ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... very of dues and for receiving penalties imposed by the Adjudicating Authority. 4. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the High Court in paragraphs 5 to 13 has elaborately considered the aforesaid two aspects on the merits of the case as to why the substantial questions of law cannot be raised. It is not necessary for us to extract those paragraphs. 5. It is stated at the Bar that the main appeals are still pending consideration in the High Court. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court could not have considered the merits of the case(s) at the admission stage, even with regard to the raising of substantial questions of law inasmuch as ultimately on hearing the parties, the Court could have assigned rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the substantial questions of law as sought for by the appellant herein in the first instance and thereafter considered the same on merits by answering the same one way or the other. We say so for the reason that when the appeals were admitted and the main appeals are pending adjudication before the High Court, it was unnecessary for the High Court to have passed detailed reasons as to why the aforesaid two substantial questions of law would not arise for consideration, at the stage of admission. No prejudice would have been caused to any of the parties if the substantial questions of law, as raised by the appellant, had been considered and answered by the High Court on merits at the time of final adjudication of the appeals. Sometimes su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
