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

1996 Supreme(SC) 640

B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, K.S.PARIPOORNAN
Collector Of Central Excise – Appellant
Versus
R. M. D. C. Press Private LTD. – Respondent


ORDER

1. Delay condoned.

2. It is not yet explained on the affidavit why the Revenue did not choose to file appeals against the other orders of the High Court which were rendered simultaneously with the order under appeal in Special Leave Petition (C) No. ... (CC No. 4847 of 1995) of 1996. On 19-1-1996, a final opportunity was given to the Revenue to explain this fact by way of an affidavit. It has not been done so far. The learned counsel for the Revenue is not in a position to state that the appeals have been preferred at least by now. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The special leave petitions are dismissed accordingly. No opinion on merits.

3. Once the special leave petitions against the decision of the High Court are dismissed, the civil appeal against the order of the Tribunal cannot proceed, since it is likely to result in inconsistent orders. Accordingly civil appeal is also dismissed, without entering into the merits of the matter.

4. No costs.

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