9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 803X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Yashi Constructions [ 2022 (3) TMI 110 - SC ORDER] that the time limit cannot be extended by the Court as the same would amount to modifying the scheme, it is only the respondent authority or the Government can extend the time, which is already extended during the COVID-19 pandemic upto 30th June 2020 and later on, upto 30th September 2020. This petition is not entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed. - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA Appearance: For the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 : Mr. Hasit Dave(1321) For the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4 : Mr. Ayaan A Patel(8900) ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA) [1] By this petition under A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i and Honourable Dr. Justice Ashokkumar C. Joshi), by order dated 4th August 2021, disposed of the said petition with a liberty to the petitioner to make representation to the respondents authorities, raising the contentions as raised in the said petition in light of the judgements of this Court as well as of the Bombay High Court, which may be applicable in the facts of the case of the petitioner. The respondents were also directed to decide the representation expeditiously and the petitioner was also directed to deposit the amount under the scheme within 15 days from the date of the order. [5] The petitioner, accordingly, filed a detailed representation on 16th August 2021 with necessary documents and copies of the judgements. [6] The res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Union of India [R/Special Civil Application No. 7292 of 2020 decided on 6th July 2020] (ii) M/s. Airlink Communication Pvt Ltd vs. Union of India [R/Special Civil Application No. 10702 of 2020 decided on 1st December 2020] (iii) Eureka Fabricators Pvt Ltd vs. Union of India [Writ Petition No. 3510 of 2019 decided on 30th June 2020 by the Bombay High Court] (iv) Acme Trade and Agencies vs. Union of India [W.P.(C) No. 2551 of 2020 decided on 23rd June 2020 by the Gauhati High Court] (v) Vaishali Sharma vs. Union of India [W.P.(C) No. 4763 of 2020 decided on 5th August 2020 by the Delhi High Court] (vi) North East Engineering and Construction vs. Union of India [W.P. (C) No. 1284 of 2020 decided on 12th October 2020 by the Gauhati High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11] Considering the submissions made by both the learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the facts emerging from the record, it is apparent that the petitioner has not made balance payment of Rs. 12,32,643/- within the extended period of time. The petitioner has also not pointed out any circumstances which suggests that the petitioner was under severe financial crunch as canvassed before the respondents authorities in the representation made by the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by this Court. [12] As held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Yashi Constructions (supra) that the time limit cannot be extended by the Court as the same would amount to modifying the scheme, it is only the respondent authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
