https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45242 Writ jurisdiction was held unsuitable where the petitioner's claimed authority as managing trustee and the asserted revocation of consent to use a trade mark were both disputed and already the subject of civil suits. The court treated those questions as requiring evidence and factual adjudication, which could not be resolved in writ proceedings. It also held that alleged non-payment of royalty under a private agreement, and the request to stop excise clearance on that basis, involved a contractual dispute to be worked out before the proper civil forum, not through statutory authorities in writ proceedings. The petitions were therefore not maintainable. en-us Thu, 07 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Jul 2010 13:22:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45242 Writ jurisdiction was held unsuitable where the petitioner's claimed authority as managing trustee and the asserted revocation of consent to use a trade mark were both disputed and already the subject of civil suits. The court treated those questions as requiring evidence and factual adjudication, which could not be resolved in writ proceedings. It also held that alleged non-payment of royalty under a private agreement, and the request to stop excise clearance on that basis, involved a contractual dispute to be worked out before the proper civil forum, not through statutory authorities in writ proceedings. The petitions were therefore not maintainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 07 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45242