Back
1999 Supreme(Mad) 88
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. JAGADEESAN
Uma Mercantile Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Customs Excise Gold Appellate Tribunal - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1243 of 1999
Decided On : 30 January 1999
The court has the discretion to direct the deposit of a fine and penalty for early disposal of an appeal, considering the circumstances and the petitioner's request for expert opinion.
Headnote:
mandamus - appeal disposal - The court directed the petitioner to deposit a fine and penalty within a specified time for early disposal of the appeal, considering the petitioner's request for expert opinion and the pending appeals.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the second respondent within a fixed time.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the petitioner's request for early disposal of the appeal after obtaining an expert opinion and directed the petitioner to deposit the fine and penalty within a specified time for early disposal of the appeal.
Issues: The main issue was the petitioner's request for early disposal of the appeal after obtaining an expert opinion, and the pending appeals before the appellate tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the petitioner's request for early disposal of the appeal was valid, considering the circumstances and the pending appeals, and directed the petitioner to deposit the fine and penalty for early disposal of the appeal.
Final Decision: The writ petition was ordered accordingly, directing the petitioner to deposit the fine and penalty within a specified time for early disposal of the appeal.
The Order of the Court is as follows :-
The petitioner has filed this writ petition for the issue of a writ ofmandamus, directing the first respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner herein against the order of the second respondent within the time fixed by this court. The only contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that if the fine as well as the penalty are paid and the goods are to be taken delivery by the petitioner, then the petitioner's request for the expert opinion cannot be complied with. As the petitioner has requested the original authority to seek for the expert opinion in case of doubt and the original authority having failed to consider this aspect, now the petitioner seeks an early disposal of the appeal after getting the expert opinion.
2.I perused the order of the Appellate Tribunal, dated 2-7-1998 wherein the Appellate Tribunal has noticed that this is not a fit case for granting early hearing especially when the appeals of more than ten years are pending. I considered the reference made by the appellate Tribunal.
3.In considering the petitioner's request for early disposal of the appeal after getting the expert opinion, I am of the view that the petitioner can be given an opportunity to have the appeal disposed of early especially when his contention is that if the redemption fine as well as penalty are paid and the goods are taken delivery, then the goods may not be availed for the expert opinion. In fact the petitioner has taken the ground before the appellate authority in Ground No. B. Hence I am of the view that the appeal can be disposed of early.
4.In order to have the benefit for the early disposal, it is necessary that the petitioner should be put on terms. Hence the petitioner is directed to deposit the fine of Rs. Two lakhs and the penalty of Rs. 50, 000/- within four weeks from today. On such payment, the first respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal of the petitioner (No. C/484/98) within three months thereafter. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
