TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal, while considering stay and pre-deposit in the appeal of a company referred to BIFR, was bound to consider the company's net worth and the binding effect of the earlier Supreme Court ruling. (ii) Whether the writ petition was not entertainable because an alternative statutory appeal was available.
Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal, while considering stay and pre-deposit in the appeal of a company referred to BIFR, was bound to consider the company's net worth and the binding effect of the earlier Supreme Court ruling.
Analysis: The Court held that the earlier direction required the Tribunal to decide the stay application afresh in the light of the Supreme Court ruling and to record findings on the company's net worth. It further held that the precedent on pre-deposit and BIFR reference could not be ignored, and that the Tribunal had not addressed the net-worth question at all. Judicial discipline required adherence to binding precedent, and the impugned order failed to reflect such consideration.
Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.
Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was not entertainable because an alternative statutory appeal was available.
Analysis: The Court held that the existence of an appellate remedy does not impose an absolute bar on writ jurisdiction. The power under Article 226 is discretionary and may be exercised where the impugned action discloses failure to consider relevant materials and where interference is warranted to prevent injustice. On the facts, the Court found no reason to decline review on the ground of alternative remedy.
Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of the stay application on the question of net worth in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: In considering stay or pre-deposit for a sick industrial company referred to BIFR, the Tribunal must apply the binding precedent and determine the company's net worth, and writ jurisdiction may be exercised where such relevant considerations are ignored.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
