Court grants extension for fine payment, prohibits goods disposal, stresses admin remedies, schedules appeals for May.

The court granted two weeks for the appellants to seek an extension of time for payment of fine and penalty, during which the respondent was prohibited from disposing of goods. The court emphasized the need to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking court intervention and scheduled the appeals for a specific date in May to expedite the process. The judgment highlighted the court's power to grant interim relief and aimed to balance the interests of both parties while ensuring a fair and efficient resolution.

---

---

Issues:
1. Request for extension of time for payment of fine and penalty.
2. Grant of interim stay preventing disposal of goods.
3. Consideration of inherent powers of the court.
4. Failure to approach revenue authorities for extension of time.
5. Fixation of appeal dates based on demurrage involved.

Analysis:
The case involved miscellaneous applications presented in court regarding three appeals for extension of time for payment of fine and penalty. The advocate for the appellants argued that certain lines added to the original order were an afterthought and requested an interim stay preventing the disposal of goods until the appeals were heard. The advocate referred to a letter granting time for clearance of goods and highlighted the significant demurrage incurred by the goods. The learned J.D.R. did not object to the hearing of the applications.

The court, after considering both sides, noted that the matter was sub judice and refrained from delving into the merits at that stage. It was emphasized that the court possessed incidental and ancillary powers, citing a Supreme Court case to support this assertion. The court also pointed out that the appellants had not exhausted their remedy by approaching revenue authorities for an extension of time. Despite this, the court granted two weeks for the appellants to seek an extension if they chose to do so, during which time the respondent was prohibited from disposing of the goods. The court stressed the importance of approaching revenue authorities first before seeking court intervention.

In light of the significant demurrage involved in the appeals, the court directed the Registry to schedule the appeals for a specific date in May to expedite the process. The judgment highlighted the court's power to grant interim relief while also underscoring the importance of exhausting administrative remedies before seeking court intervention. The decision aimed to balance the interests of both parties while ensuring a fair and efficient resolution of the appeals.

---