Karnataka High Court
Varalakshmi Exports vs Union Of India By Secretary on 29 November, 2012
Author: N Kumar
Bench: N Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.V.PINTO
WRIT APPEAL NO.40 OF 2009 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. Varalakshmi Exports
No.7, Mission Road
Bangalore-560 027
Reptd. By Managing Partner
Sri K.H.Subramani
2. K.H.Subramani
Managing Partner
45, I Cross, Nehrunagar
Bangalore-560 020.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI KIRAN S.JAVALI, ADV)
AND:
1. Union of India
By Secretary
Ministry of Commerce
Udyog Bhavan
New Delhi 110 011.
2
2. Joint Director General of Foreign Trade
6th C & E Wing
Kendriya Sadan
Koramangala
Bangalore.
3. Additional Director General of
Foreign Trade
Room No.9, Ground Floor
Udyog Bhavan
New Delhi 110 011.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI Y.HARIPRASAD, CGC)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION
NO.50800/2004 DATED 01.12.2008.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, N KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge who has dismissed the writ petition, as there was no earnest effort made by the appellants to comply with the directions issued by the appellate authority in furnishing bank guarantee.
3
2. The appellants preferred an appeal challenging the order in original of the respondent No.2. Along with the appeal, he filed an application for dispensation of pre-deposit of penalty pending hearing of the appeal. An order came to be passed on the said application directing the appellants to furnish a bank guarantee for Rs.11.29 lakhs. The said bank guarantee was not furnished. Therefore, the appeal came to be dismissed. Challenging the said order, he preferred a writ petition. The learned Single Judge declined to entertain the writ petition on the ground that there is no infirmity in the order passed. Aggrieved by the said order this appeal is filed.
3. At the stage of hearing, it was submitted in pursuance of an interim order passed by this Court, the appellants have furnished bank guarantee and it has been renewed from time to time. From the order 4 sheet we cannot make out any such order. The appellants are also not in possession of the certified copy of the order which has been obtained.
4. Under these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be found fault with. Hence there is no merit in this appeal. If really the appellants have already furnished a bank guarantee to the extent of the amount mentioned by the appellate authority, it is open to them to move the appellate authority with a request to revive the appeal which has been dismissed earlier for non-furnishing of bank guarantee.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE JT/-