9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (12) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2439/95 and CM 4095/95 dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner. 2.The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition was that respondents No. 5 to 10 have wrongfully claimed certain charges towards duty of Central Excise, which the petitioner had to ultimately pay. According to the petitioner the said amount had been paid to respondents 2 to 4 under the provisions of Central Excises a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted that respondents 5 and 6 granted dealership to the petitioner to sell their goods in the State of Delhi Haryana, business offers were made at Delhi and orders were issued at Delhi and goods were despatched to Delhi and as such, the court in Delhi has the territorial jurisdiction to decide the issues raised in the writ petition. 4.We have given our careful consideration to the submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iscretionary and based on equitable consideration. At this stage we may also refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd., reported in 1984 (18) E.L.T. 284 (SC) = AIR 1984 SC 1264 stating thus : "Having regard to the fact that the registered office of the company is at Ludhiana and the principal respondents against whom the primary relief is sought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
