Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M/S Monika India vs Union Of India . on 26 November, 2014
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, Rohinton Fali Nariman
1
ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.8 SECTION III
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).
18364-18365/2012
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23/02/2012
in WP No. 17976/2004 and WP No. 17977/2004 passed by the High Court
Of Delhi At N. Delhi)
M/S MONIKA INDIA & ANR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(Interim relief and office report)
(For final disposal)
Date : 26/11/2014 These petitions were called on for hearing
today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Nikhil Goel,Adv.
Ms. Naveen Goel, Adv.
Mr. Marsook Bafaki, Adv.
For Respondent(s) MR. Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Sunita Rani Singh, Adv.
Mr. Deep Karan Dalal, Adv.
Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv.
Mr. Piyush Sharma,Adv.
Mr. Ameet Singh, Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv.
MR. Praveen Swarup, Adv.
Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Praveen Chaturvedi,Adv.
Mr. Shantanu Sagar, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Meenakshi Kohli
Date: 2014.11.27
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
09:51:29 IST
Reason:
O R D E R
2 Having heard learned counsels for the parties at length, we are of the view that the following order should govern the matter for present:
Any adjudication and consequential finding on the issues raised before us would have the effect of affecting the issues which are pending for trial in C.S. (OS) No. 1397 of 2000, presently pending before the High Court of Delhi. We are, therefore, of the view that, in the first instance, the High Court should be directed to dispose of the suit within a period of three months. This direction to the High Court has been passed in exercise of our powers under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution of India taking into account the fact that the suit has remained pending before the High Court for nearly a decade and a half.
While the proceedings of the suit will go on, we are also of the view that the operative directions passed in Union of India and Others v. Sanjeev Woollen Mills [(1998) 9 SCC 647] needs to be monitored insofar as departmental action against the erring officers is concerned. We, accordingly, direct the Union of India to place an appropriate affidavit with regard to the departmental action directed to be taken by this Court as far as back in 1998 and also whether it is the same officers of the Customs Department who were responsible for the detention of the goods that is the subject matter of the present proceedings.
List the matters part-heard after two weeks.
Needless to say, the High Court will decide the suit on its own merit and without being influenced by any of the observations 3 and findings in the order impugned before us.
(MEENAKSHI KOHLI) (ASHA SONI) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER