Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

M/S.Silverline Advertising(New ... vs Commissioner,Of Customes & Central ... on 10 April, 2018

Author: B.P. Dharmadhikari

Bench: B. P. Dharmadhikari

   Judgment                                                             wp3626.04
                                          1



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.



                      WRIT PETITION  NO. 3626  OF  2004.


           M/s. Silverline Advertising,
           (now closed) through its Proprietor
           Shri Vivek Y. Vaidya, through his
           Power of Attorney holder, Shri
           Yeshwant s/o Wamanrao Vaidya,
           aged about 69 years, occ - Retired,
           Govt. Servant, r/o. 237, Bhagirathi
           Bhavan, Dharampeth, Nagpur.                     ...   PETITIONER.


                                    VERSUS


  1.       Commissioner of Customs
           and Central Excise,  Nagpur
           Central Excise Building, Telankhedi 
           Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur.

  2.       Superintendent,  (Service Tax)
           Central Excise, HCRS Central Excise
           Building, Telankhedi Road,
           Civil Lines, Nagpur.                ...   RESPONDENTS.


                                    -----------
                 Mrs. B.P. Maldhure, Advocate for the petitioner.
                  Shri  S. Khedkar, Advocate for respondents.
                                    ----------- 


                                     CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI
                                               AND A.D. UPADHYE, JJ.

                                     DATED  : APRIL 10, 2018.


::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2018                     ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2018 02:08:34 :::
    Judgment                                                                wp3626.04
                                            2




  ORAL JUDGMENT :  (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Mrs. Maldhure, learned counsel points out that efforts made by her to contact petitioner has failed. The proprietor and Power of Attorney Holder are no more and the establishment could also not be contacted as it is closed.

2. Shri Khedkar, learned counsel for respondents, submits that there is no merit in the petition and petitioner is enjoying the interim protection.

3. In this situation, we dismiss the Writ Petition for want of prosecution. Interim orders operating in the matter also stands vacated. Rule discharged. No costs.

                               JUDGE                  JUDGE
                                                 

  Rgd.




::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2018                        ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2018 02:08:34 :::