Karnataka High Court
M/S Eureka Forbes Ltd vs Union Of India on 1 July, 2009
Author: N.K.Patil
Bench: N.K.Patil
eee UE com Wy 2008 $26 OE 4 oS » 1 SERS- ge tee ie IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE, DATED THIS THE 15? DAY OF JULY, 2003, : BEFORE KPATR. z a2 ON Nos.3084 OF 2008 & 188 THE HON'BLE MIR. JUSTICE N S278 OF 2007 & 18827 OF 2008 (| GM-RES =
3 2009 C/W. WRIT PETITION Nos. | WRIT PETIT! &,
-226 OF 2069 me W. P. Nos.3084 OF 2608 & 1822) o BOO I i O278 DP 2007 & Cc ee Bee Co Gul Lu eo = f Joo seat zal 2 "9 oa eles = Capt bite "i oN ©) 4E IAR 3 ail OER Th ANG _ en Fi ie W. P. Nos. 9278 OF 2007 & 18827 OF 2009 To yu 4A KR TF ra spam ae St © :
ie AzeSS ee Ve CS oe! ae i fa lS :
ya £3 Og w= 2;
at Gye oe a Shel og 5 ae 7" UL fo So co gt Pa 03 (9 <tc §. EO yw ui, Se OFA ome a Gaus oy 2 Ewe Seyic £ ee a be oe io S933 25259 :
OY at 2 Osthap es wl fe ae Ld * we Se oo Ah of ge a i) x pele oe eR sme RE eC LL oe an TB RO ae we we On og
- oe 3 BS Hews we a "st "i, a £ . ra i G3 3 a i os a 0 od ay o ;
a. i oe fo 2 te ee af : te ib z f :
Row i <8 : a a SG O. a ao S My «tS 22 a .
ant oa e * i oh oy 09 £3 s so af ag kh <€ 5 "
CO ye & ) Y am oa fa os ome Y a ee te ey I = es en ss ' me QS o Oo a foe Oe cy on aia ;
"e te oe oe : tS eo OBES os = Che LO ~ . = "ae ae o $ be "tf £0 at > Pg a a ee 3 4 . iy Zug a fe UF th LU at ni ag SH or Are OG ehcd i i : + x on Agape FP RE PAIAMEG fre "* ye GF % 14-876 OF F008 caw W UPLNo 278 OF 2007 & 1ss27 OF 2009 Petitioners in VV_P.No 3084/2008 and 1BBD5- _ 826/2009 have sought for calling: the records of the case after perusing the same, quash 'the impugned notice dated 7" January 2008 iesued by the third) respondent at Annexure A and to dire a the respondents fo return back the seized produ ots nartiely 3 units of Forbes Adquasure storage water purifiers. Further, petitioner have sought for a direction in the nature of prohibition, restraining fhe respondents aioe 'taki ng ary action in pursuance to the impugned natice dated pl January 2008 issued by third = respondent at Annexure A. Bo Petitioner in WEP.No.19278/2007 and TBEQTIIO 506 | has sought for quashing the impugned notice " "dated 17" September 2007, issued by the third respondent vide Annexure A and to direct the ype uh 7 o oon at ; "e ARNATARA Ae ia een we we pe emcee Ee PROCES PE 'cay UN! ice PER TRE PVE? Te 1 Seek eS * a tae Piha SG ae tae aa AER, GR eR aa a RD al: & LBL? OF Ritts Es units of 'Eurociearn' vacuum cleaner and 5 units of 'Aquaguard' water purifler Further, petitioner has sought _ for restraining . the - respondents from taking any action n pursuance to the impugned notice dated 17" 'September 2007, issued by the third respondent vide Annexure A: ; |
3. The only gridvanee of petitioners in these petitions is that | petitioners hersin. neither come under the relevant provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act. 1976 nor the Standards of Weights and = an oi) i a ea' a en fA, "I 1M cp ie cw Ee ;
cy ch <4 | Ce es core th t Ruaie ald C ti up products marketed b by p se etiioners come under the said "provisions. V \ fith out any justification, the third respondent has proceedse to issue the impugned notices for violations of relevant provisions of the aforesaid Act and ~~ Rules "Therefore. being aggrieved by the impugned notices, petitioners have presented these netitions a seeking appropriate reliefs, asystated supra.
ihg MME Ht FH iE faerel we LORE Ww Ne & 18525-826 OF 2008 ¢ civ, WPNo.19278 OF 2007 & 18827 OF 2009 PRE CR Pot Poti 7 AR Tabs OS ACE IN CPE TUCO COURT OPE gs ARNATA RED BAL SES A as t 3 & [8624-826 Or 2008 cay, WOR NG IGE:
petitioners and Jearned counsel appearing . tox .
5. After careful perusal of the jrvatarias available dn record including the impugned. noti¢es issued in these petitions, it emerges that the pind notices have been issued ta the petitioners. 'on. , * January. (2008 (in first petition) and a7 September 2007 (es second petition) alling upon the pettioner . to reply regarding the lapses as sa marina in the said notice eS, : instead of filing reply py taking : the > pieliminary "objection ragarding the jurisdiction "of the 'third respondent im issuing ine ~ impugned notes and initiatin ng the proceedings and for 'violation of the provisions of the Standards of Weights rarer 1967 and ts Rules 1977, pettioners and' Measures Act, have s straightaway approached this Court invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Vvhen tne | "impugned notices are only, notices issued seeking seein IN CPH® HIGGH CORI YP GaR RAHN AYVAK A AYP LEAT GAS (ORE 4 WY "BN 7088 & [SELS-82y OF M08 ww WP ONo lSi7S OF HMI & PSS2? OF 2 Sow BO2GL 98.3084 OF 2008 explanation or reply from pettioners, 1 is very much open for the petitioners to take such stand and grounds taken -
in these petitions by way of submitting replylobje stk tions aon 7 ine inpugned notices to enable the third resporident to lake 4a decision in accordance with haw, "if the: said authority has any jurieaicton: Therefore petitioners cannel maintain the writ p etitions by invoking ¢ the extra ordinary jurisdiction ae of ihe wel setied lew laid down by the Apex Court ano this Court in catena of herefore, without' expressing any opinion on merits of 'the case, the writ petitions Ted by petitioners "Sts nd dicposed of with the following directions:
} 4 The petiioners herein are permitted
- (of file their repiy/objections fo the impugned notices aiong wilh necessary documents io substantiate their stand, within a period of 2 ea OE SO08 AAG ewe UES gb gules oy Ye ee two weeks from the dale of receipi of a copy 7 -
of this order:
i} The third respondent herein -- directed fo receive the reply/s bec clions that may be fled by these petitioners and pass :
appropriate order ip accordance wit th lavy, after | affording opportunity fg the petitioners and dispose of the same, as expeds ously as possible, al any rate, within a a period of eight Weeks -- from . 'the a date oF receipt oof replys 'ob ye ctiona fo be filed. ay petitioners 19 o£ complianc ce of ihe direction issued by this Court as stated above;
| Tid the 'third respondent takes ep at ute a . ed | ste dome wt boa oon ae feo Be i i appropriate decision on ihe reply/objections to be ied by petitioners, needless fo clarify that, HG. proceedings shail be intieted against the petitic sners herein.
Sd/= Judge BMV NATAKA AT HANGALORE WP WP.No. 19278 OF 2007 & i882"
THE HEGH CIR TD Cob RA & [REIS-876 OF BOOS,