1994 (7) TMI 193

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itions. 2. Shri Govindaswamy, the learned Consultant for the petitioners submitted that the stay petitions were filed by the petitioners seeking stay of pre-deposit of duty and penalty and the same came up for hearing on 23-6-1993. Consequent on the absence of the petitioner the Stay petition was dismissed for default of appearance as not pursued and the petitioners were directed to make the pre-deposit in terms of the impugned order on or before 31st Aug., 1993 and report compliance. 31st Aug., 1993 was declared a holiday due to Milad-ul-Nabi. The petitioners filed applications for restoration of the Stay petitions on 14-7-1993 stating that the notice of hearing of the stay petitions posted to 23-6-1993 was not received by the peti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he petitioners. Petitioner Ranganathan also sustained a serious head injury and was hospitalised for a considerable period resulting in total dislocation of their routine. 3. Shri Jeyaseelan, the learned DR submitted that the petitioners were protracting the proceedings before the adjudicating authority and also before the Tribunal and the reasons given are not acceptable. The amounts involved are fairly large. The petitioners did not seriously pursue their remedy before law and are only deliberately protracting the proceedings one way or the other and therefore, do not deserve any sympathy and there is no merit in the case. 4. At this stage we are only concerned about the restoration of the stay petitions which were not dis....