9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (10) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to withdraw notice dated August 3, 1982 and the certificate issued by respondent Nos. 3 to 5. Only few facts are required to be stated to appreciate the claim of the appellants. 2. In the year 1955 the appellants purchased a dyeing and bleaching mills in auction and the same was let out to respondent No. 6, M/s Jalan Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., which is a sister concern of appellant No. 1. Respondent No.6 carried on business of processing of the unit in the name "Jalan Dyeing and Bleaching Mills". Respondent No. 6 was carrying on business from the year 1955 till the year 1970 and in respect of the business a large liability to pay excise duty accrued. Respondent No.6 failed to pay the duty a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d till the disposal of the petition. The learned counsel also contended that respondent No. 6 has filed Civil Appeal No.46 of 1979 before the Supreme Court against Union of India and where question of liability and the quantum of duty are in dispute. It was stated that the appeal came up for hearing before Mr. Justice Venkataramiah and Mr. Justice Dutt on November 5, 1986, and the matter was adjourned to December 9, 1986 to explore the possibility of settlement of claim. Though matter was adjourned till December 9, 1986, according to the learned counsel, it has not come up again before the Supreme Court. It was urged that unless the possibility of settlement is ruled out or unless the liability of the appellants is crystalised, it is not pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned. Single Judge» we inquired from the learned counsel for the appellants as to whether the appellants are willing to furnish bank guarantee for the amount of Rs. 67 lakhs in favour of Union of India. We suggested to the learned counsel that interim relief would be continued till the disposal of the petition before the learned Single Judge provided the appellants furnish the bank guarantee. The learned counsel stated that the question of furnishing bank guarantee does not arise, or in other words the appellants have no desire to give any guarantee. The counsel insisted that once the petition is admitted, interim relief must follow as a course. We are unable to accede to any such submission. In our judgment, there is no case, whatsoever ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
