TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Emphasizes Jurisdiction in Writ Petitions, Urges Caution on Interim Relief</h1> The Supreme Court criticized the grant of interim relief without hearing the opposite parties, emphasized the importance of jurisdiction in filing writ ... Whether the interim order under cl. 8B of the Import (Control) is of a drastic character with great potential for mischief? Held that:- High Court was not right in granting interim relief in the terms in which it had done so. We, therefore, vacate the interim order dated November 22, 1983, made by the Calcutta High Court. It has been pointed out to us that the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports has himself issued a public notice dated September 1, 1983, permitting re-shipment/re-export of import consignments which could not be cleared consequent upon the Ministry of Commerce, Import Trade Control Order No. 27 of 1983 dated August 24, 1983. The public notice empowers the customs authority to allow re-shipment/re-export having regard to the extent to which foreign exchange spent on import will be earned back and subject to such other conditions relating thereto as the customs authority may impose. We wish to make it clear that the vacating of the interim order will not disentitle the writ petitioners from seeking and taking advantage of the public notice dated September 1, 1983. Appeal allowed. Issues:1. Jurisdiction of filing writ petition in Calcutta High Court instead of High Court of Punjab and Haryana or Delhi High Court.2. Granting of interim relief without hearing the opposite parties.3. Transfer of writ petition from Bombay High Court to Supreme Court.4. Contempt of court application against authorities for not disposing of applications promptly.Jurisdiction of filing writ petition in Calcutta High Court:The judgment discusses the jurisdiction issue of filing a writ petition in Calcutta High Court instead of High Court of Punjab and Haryana or Delhi High Court. The petitioners chose Calcutta High Court possibly due to an interlocutory relief sought regarding a consignment at Calcutta Port. The court expresses concern over deliberate filing in distant High Courts to delay proceedings and render it difficult for officials to contest promptly.Granting of interim relief without hearing the opposite parties:The court criticizes the Calcutta High Court for granting a drastic interim order without hearing the opposite parties. The interim order stayed actions under cl. 8B of the Import Control Order without sufficient grounds, potentially jeopardizing public interest. The judgment emphasizes the importance of issuing notice to respondents and avoiding ex parte interim orders against statutory orders made in the public interest.Transfer of writ petition from Bombay High Court to Supreme Court:The judgment mentions a similar case transferred from the Bombay High Court to the Supreme Court at the instance of the Union of India. The delay in contesting writ petitions and vacating interim orders is highlighted, indicating a pending case heard by the same Bench. The petition pertains to orders under cl. 8B of the Import Control Order against various import-export houses.Contempt of court application against authorities for not disposing of applications promptly:The court addresses a contempt of court application against authorities for not promptly disposing of applications despite the stay of the 'abeyance' order. The judgment clarifies that the stay only entitled the petitioners to have their applications processed, without imposing a time limit. The court finds the application a means to extract licenses, leading to the appeal being allowed, vacating the interim order, and quashing the contempt of court rule.In conclusion, the Supreme Court criticized the grant of interim relief without hearing the opposite parties, emphasized the importance of jurisdiction in filing writ petitions, discussed the transfer of a similar case, and addressed a contempt of court application regarding the disposal of applications promptly. The judgment highlights the need for caution in granting interim relief against statutory orders and the consequences of delaying proceedings in distant High Courts.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
