Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.29 seconds)Section 14 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 35 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 73 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Mr. Dinkarrai Harilal Parekh And Ors vs Mr. Rajendra Dinkarrai Parekh on 4 July, 2022
They took a chance, which apparently looking
to the facts in Ketan V. Parekh's case and this case appear
to be the practice of the counsels appearing in such
matters at Delhi High Court and succeeded in getting
interim orders. The Supreme Court has strongly
deprecated such practice of forum shopping. In this case
also there is no pleading that the writ petition and
thereafter appeal was filed in Delhi High Court, under bona
fide belief that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal and
that the appellant was pursuing the remedies in wrong
court with due diligence. The appellant, thereafter, caused
a further delay of 20 days in filing this appeal, which he
has not explained.
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 86 in The Finance Act, 2018 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
The Customs Act, 1962
M/S. Ambica Industries vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 18 May, 2007
23. There is another reason why the benefit of Section 14
of the Limitation Act cannot be extended to the appellants.
All of them are well conversant with various statutory
provisions including FEMA. One of them was declared a
notified person under Section 3(2) of the Special Court
(Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities)
Act, 1992 and several civil and criminal cases are pending
against him. The very fact that they had engaged a group
of eminent Advocates to present their cause before the
Delhi and the Bombay High Courts shows that they have
the assistance of legal experts and this seems to the
reason why they invoked the jurisdiction of the Delhi High
Court and not of the Bombay High Court despite the fact
that they are residents of Bombay and have been
contesting other matters including the proceedings
pending before the Special Court at Bombay. It also
appears that the appellants were sure that keeping in view
their past conduct, the Bombay High Court may not
interfere with the order of the Appellate Tribunal.
Therefore, they took a chance before the Delhi High Court
and succeeded in persuading learned Single Judge of the
Court to entertain their prayer for stay of further
proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal. The promptness
with which the learned senior counsel appearing for
appellant - Kartik K. Parekh made a statement before the
Delhi High Court on 7-11-2007 that the writ petition may
18 Service Tax Appeal No.70453 of 2019
be converted into an appeal and considered on merits is a
clear indication of the appellant‟s unwillingness to avail
remedy before the High Court, i.e. the Bombay High Court
which had the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain an appeal
under Section 35 of the Act. It is not possible to believe
that as on 7-11-2007, the appellants and their Advocates
were not aware of the judgment of this Court in Ambica
Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise (2007) 6 SCC
769 = 2007 (213) E.L.T. 323 (S.C.) whereby dismissal of
the writ petition by the Delhi High Court on the ground of
lack of territorial jurisdiction was confirmed and it was
observed that the parties cannot be allowed to indulge in
forum shopping. It has not at all surprised us that after
having made a prayer that the writ petitions filed by them
be treated as appeals under Section 35, two of the
appellants filed applications for recall of that order. No
doubt, the learned Single Judge accepted their prayer and
the Division Bench confirmed the order of the learned
Single Judge but the manner in which the appellants
prosecuted the writ petitions before the Delhi High Court
leaves no room for doubt that they had done so with the
sole object of delaying compliance of the direction given by
the Appellate Tribunal and, by no stretch of imagination, it
can be said that they were bona fide prosecuting remedy
before a wrong forum. Rather, there was total absence of
good faith, which is sine qua non for invoking Section 14 of
the Limitation Act.