SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(SC) 82

S.B.MAJMUDAR, S.P.KURDUKAR
Union Of India – Appellant
Versus
Hindustan Development Corporation – Respondent


(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) WITH the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. The short question is whether the learned Single Judge and the Division bench of the High court were justified in quashing the show-cause notice which only called upon the respondent to file its counter and reply to the show-cause notice so that the adjudicating proceedings may take place. In our view on the question whether Tariff Item 33-B(®) of the Tariff Act applies or Item 26-AA(i-a) applies, requires investigation of available facts. The High court should not have undertaken the onerous duty of adjudicating upon these questions which were required to be decided on merits by the authorities themselves. Only on the short ground and without going into the merits of the controversy between the parties, orders passed by the learned Single Judge and division bench are vacated. Now the show-cause notice will be required to be adjudicated upon on merits. The respondents will be given liberty to file written reply within eight weeks from today. Thereafter the adjudicating authority will decide the question on merits strictly on the basis of evidence led before it wit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top