1988 (1) TMI 188

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....chandani is briefed for the 1st respondent but is on his legs in another court. No explanation, however, unacceptable is vouchsafed for the favour of the 1st respondent's advocate on record to appear. 2. The appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned judge on the notice of motion taken out by the appellants. The learned judge refused relief on the notice of motion. 3. The appellants entered into an agreement with the 2nd respondent for the purchase of edible oils imported by the 2nd respondent on the basis of allocations made by the 1st respondent for the purposes of manufacturing vanaspati at their factory at Pachora in the State of Maharashtra. On 30th June 1986, the 2nd respondent informed the appellants that, under....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....preferred an appeal against the order of summary rejection. The appeal court directed the 1st respondent to put on affidavit all orders passed against the appellants under clauses 8, 8A and 8B and orders for extension thereof. An affidavit was filed but was not in accordance with the directions of the appeal court. By its order dated 19th February, 1987 the appeal court recorded the statement made on behalf of the 1st respondent by counsel that these orders had been passed under clause 8B. The appeal court, prima facie, was of the view that in the matter of these orders there had not been proper or full compliance with the requirements prescribed by the Supreme Court in Liberty Oil Mills v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1271: Accordingly....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t, the learned judge said, "no further directions are necessary at this stage" and made no order on the notice of motion. 8. Mr. Pochkhanawala, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, stated that the order of abeyance dated 10th March, 1987 had been extended from time to time and was lastly extended on 22nd December, 1987 to operate till 9th March, 1988. 9. There are several factors to be noted. First, there was reliance upon three orders which were the subject-matter of prima facie comment by the earlier Division Bench. Thereafter, another order of abeyance under clause 8B was passed on 10th March, 1987, to operate for a period of 6 months. Then counsel for the 1st respondent solemnly assured the learned judge that the inquiry agains....