Court Grants Ad Interim Ex Parte Stay on Recovery Notice: Balance of Convenience Favors Petitioner

The court granted the Petitioner an ad interim ex parte stay of the Recovery Notice dated 15.07.2021, directing the Petitioner to deposit the amount sought to be recovered. The court found a prima facie case for interim relief, noting irreparable loss if recovery was not stayed. The court held that the Balance of Convenience favored the Petitioner, staying the operation of the impugned orders and the Recovery Notice during the writ petition's pendency. The court agreed with the Petitioner's argument on the applicability of the DGFT Notification dated 25.08.2017, granting interim relief based on the presented judgments and legal arguments.

---

---

Issues:
1. Ad interim ex parte stay of Recovery Notice dated 15.07.2021.
2. Applicability of DGFT Notification dated 25.08.2017 on import of goods from South Korea.
3. Prima facie case for grant of interim relief.
4. Balance of Convenience.
5. Irreparable loss to the Petitioner if recovery is not stayed.

Analysis:
1. The Petitioner filed an application seeking an ad interim ex parte stay of the Recovery Notice dated 15.07.2021, which directed the Petitioner to deposit the entire amount sought to be recovered under the impugned orders dated 04.09.2020 and 07.09.2020 within 7 days. The Court issued notice, and after hearing counsels for both parties and perusing relevant judgments, found that the Petitioner had made out a prima facie case for interim relief. The Court held that irreparable loss would be caused if the recovery was not stayed, thus staying the operation of the impugned orders and the Recovery Notice during the pendency of the writ petition.

2. The Petitioner's Senior Counsel argued that the import of goods from South Korea occurred before the Amendment by the DGFT Notification dated 25.08.2017, which restricted the import of gold from South Korea. The Counsel contended that this Amendment would not apply to the import in question. The Petitioner relied on judgments from the Delhi High Court and Karnataka High Court, which were placed on record. The Court, after considering the facts and the judgments, agreed with the Petitioner's contentions and granted the interim relief in their favor, finding the Balance of Convenience favored the Petitioner.

3. The Court noted that the case and judgments cited by the Petitioner supported their claim that the impugned orders and the Recovery Notice should be stayed. By analyzing the facts and the legal arguments presented, the Court concluded that a prima facie case for the grant of interim relief was established by the Petitioner. This finding led to the Court issuing the order to stay the operation, implementation, and execution of the impugned orders and the Recovery Notice until the writ petition's final disposition.

4. In determining the Balance of Convenience, the Court considered the potential harm or loss that would be suffered by each party if the recovery was stayed or not stayed. After evaluating the facts and arguments, the Court found that the Balance of Convenience weighed in favor of the Petitioner. The Court's decision to grant the interim relief was influenced by this consideration, as well as the potential irreparable loss that the Petitioner would face if the recovery was not stayed.

5. The Court's decision to grant the interim relief was primarily based on the potential irreparable loss that the Petitioner would suffer if the recovery was not stayed. By staying the operation of the impugned orders and the Recovery Notice, the Court aimed to prevent any irreversible harm to the Petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition. This consideration of irreparable loss played a crucial role in the Court's decision-making process and ultimately led to the grant of interim relief in favor of the Petitioner.

---