Gujarat High Court
Vodafone India Services Pvt .Ltd. vs Union Of India on 5 July, 2019
Author: Harsha Devani
Bench: Harsha Devani, Bhargav D. Karia
C/SCA/17033/2018 IA ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR EXTENSION OF TIME) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17033 of 2018
================================================================
VODAFONE INDIA SERVICES PVT .LTD.
Versus UNION OF INDIA ================================================================ Appearance:
MR SN SOPARKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR B S SOPARKAR, MR MRUNAL PAREKH, ADVOCATES for the PETITIONER MR MR BHATT, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MRS MAUNA M BHATT for the RESPONDENT ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA Date : 05/07/2019 IA ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)
1. Rule. Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents.
2. By this application, the applicant seeks extension of time for providing bank guarantee as directed by this court vide judgment and order dated 15.4.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.17033 of 2018, whereby it was directed thus:
"The parent company shall provide a corporate guarantee for the balance amount under the penalty order which shall subsist till the final disposal of the appeal within a period of three weeks from today."Page 1 of 5 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 10 23:38:29 IST 2019
C/SCA/17033/2018 IA ORDER
3. Mr. S. N. Soparkar, Senior Advocate, learned counsel with Mr. B. S. Soparkar, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that while the judgment and order was dictated on 15.4.2019, the judgment was not available on the website of this court till 24.5.2019 and it is only thereafter that the applicant could do the needful for submitting the bank guarantee.
3.1 It was submitted that immediately thereafter, the applicant had forwarded a letter dated 25.5.2019 enclosing a draft corporate guarantee therewith to the third respondent, seeking confirmatory approval of the format, in compliance with the directions issued by this court. However, the third respondent, by a letter dated 6.6.2019, stated that the draft corporate guarantee had been sent to the higher authorities for their necessary administrative approval and the same is yet to be received by their office and that the same would be conveyed to applicant as and when received.
3.2 It was submitted that vide email dated 12.6.2019, the third respondent sought additional information from the applicant, without providing any specific comments on the format of the draft corporate guarantee submitted by the applicant, and that thereafter, out of abundant caution, the applicant requested its parent company to provide the requisite corporate guarantee, pending formalisation of the draft by the third respondent, in order to establish bona fides and due compliance with the directions issued by this court. Accordingly, on 11.6.2019, the corporate guarantee was duly executed and apostilled by the parent company VIH BV in the Netherlands and hard copy of the corporate guarantee was Page 2 of 5 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 10 23:38:29 IST 2019 C/SCA/17033/2018 IA ORDER couriered to the applicant's lawyer, which in turn was received on 14.6.2019. It was submitted that thereafter the applicant's lawyers adopted immediate steps to get the corporate guarantee stamped through franking method and for this purpose approached several banks, which declined the request and ultimately, the corporate bank guarantee was transmitted (without franking) to the third respondent, both via email dated 19.6.2019 and also under cover of letter dated 19.6.2019 through Registered Post A.D., which was received by the third respondent on 24.6.2019.
3.3 It was submitted that however, by a communication dated 27.6.2019, the applicant has been called upon to show cause as to why it should not be treated as an "assessee in default" for the outstanding penalty demand in view of the fact that the corporate bank guarantee was not provided within three weeks from the date of the judgment. It was submitted that in view of the fact that the copy of the judgment was not available till 25.5.2019, the applicant could not furnish the corporate guarantee within the stipulated time limit, and hence, the time limit for furnishing the corporate guarantee be extended till 24th June, 2019 when the corporate guarantee was actually received by the third respondent.
4. Vehemently opposing the application, Mr. M. R. Bhatt, Senior Advocate, learned counsel with Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel for the respondents submitted that the judgment and order dated 15.4.2019 is clear and unambiguous, wherein it is stated that the corporate should be submitted within a period of three weeks from the date of the judgment and hence it was incumbent upon the applicant to Page 3 of 5 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 10 23:38:29 IST 2019 C/SCA/17033/2018 IA ORDER furnish the corporate guarantee within the stipulated time limit.
4.1 The learned counsel further invited the attention of the court to the communication dated 12.6.2019 (Annexure "D" to the application), whereby a detailed explanation had been called for from the applicant with supporting documentary evidence in respect of the points raised therein. It was submitted that various issues arise with regard to the corporate guarantee submitted by the parent company as stated therein, and that, unless the points raised by the respondent are answered, there is nothing to show that the interest of the revenue would be secured by a corporate guarantee furnished by the Parent Company which is situated in Netherlands.
4.2 It was accordingly, urged that instead of a corporate guarantee, the applicant be directed to furnish a bank guarantee to secure the interest of the revenue, more so, considering the fact that the applicant is financially sound and in a position to furnish a bank guarantee.
5. This court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties. Insofar as the apprehensions voiced by the learned counsel for the respondent are concerned, the same do not fall within the scope of the present application whereby the applicant only seeks extension of the time stipulated by this court for furnishing the corporate guarantee. In fact what the respondents seek is a modification of the judgment and order dated 15.04.2019 by substituting the condition of furnishing Page 4 of 5 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 10 23:38:29 IST 2019 C/SCA/17033/2018 IA ORDER corporate guarantee with bank guarantee, which cannot be done in an application filed by the applicant herein.
6. Insofar as the relief prayed for in this application is concerned, in the opinion of this court, the same appears to be reasonable inasmuch as on account of the ensuing vacations the judgment and order was not uploaded till 24th May, 2019, on account of which the applicant was not in a position to do the needful to obtain the corporate guarantee from the parent company which is situated in the Netherlands. Therefore on account of no fault on its part the applicant should not be made to suffer. The application, therefore, deserves to be allowed.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the application succeeds and is accordingly, allowed. The time stipulated by this court for furnishing corporate guarantee by its judgment and order dated 15.04.2019 passed in the Special Civil Application No.17033 of 2018, is hereby extended till 25th June, 2019. In case the third respondent is not satisfied with the format of the corporate guarantee furnished by the applicant and prescribes and/or notifies the format in which the corporate guarantee should be furnished, the time limit shall stand extended for a period of four weeks from the date when the third respondent informs the applicant about such format. Rule is made absolute accordingly, with no order as to costs.
(HARSHA DEVANI, J) (BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) B.U. PARMAR Page 5 of 5 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 10 23:38:29 IST 2019