9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (10) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals coming on for orders as to admission on this day upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the order of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bakthavatsalam dated 21-9-1989 and made in the exercise of the Special Original Jurisdiction of the High Court in W.P. Nos. 6838/82,-7507/82, 7500/82, 7501/82, 7503/82, 7505/82, 7506/82, 7508/82,7509/82,7511/82 and 7513/82 respectively and all ether papers material to these cases and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. R. Thiagarajan for M/s. R. Mohanasundaram and T. Muthuraman, Advocate for the Appellant in each of the Writ Appeals and of Mr. T. Somasundaram, Addl. Central Govt. Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents in all the Writ Appeals, the Court made the following Order :- On the learned Single Judge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned Judge and that he was not correct in holding that this Court could not exercise its jurisdiction in a matter of this kind. It is contended by him that the learned Judge proceeded on the basis that the writ petitions are not maintainable in spite of referring to the decision in W.P. No. 9865 of 1987 dated 26-9-1988. 5. A careful reading of the order would show that rather the learned Judge had relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in CMP No. 15166/87 in WA No. 1730/87 dated 25-10-1988 and other decisions referred to in the order wherein it was held that the jurisdiction of this Court had not been specifically taken away by the amendment to the excise act. 6. Being conscious of the fact that this Court ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter the amendment, a Spl. Tribunal had come into existence to take up the matter further if relief is not granted by the appellate authorities. Learned Counsel Mr. Thiagarajan would point out that the law to exclude jurisdiction of this Court, as found in Act 13 of 1985 framed under Art. 323 A(2) had not been enacted in the Act and hence the learned Judge had not noted this distinction. He submits that existence of alternative remedy can be taken into account only while entertaining Writ Petitions and not at final disposal stage. 9. It is true that the exclusion of the jurisdiction has found under Act 13 of 1985 is not found in Act 1/1944. But as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar v. Dun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... long years and that the delay was not their fault. On the Tribunal coming into existence on 11-10-1982, the respondents ought to have at once moved this Court to get suitable orders by pointing out, what they have now argued. Further, having claimed that alternative remedy existing, they cannot plead that the appeals which they may file are barred by limitation. 13. Hence when respondents had failed to do what they ought to have done in 1982 or 1983 and because of it, this Court having kept the writ petitions pending for seven years, a direction is issued to the appellate authority to condone the delay in filing appeals by treating the periods involved as constitution as done in good faith. 14. Therefore, if the appellants present thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
