2000 (5) TMI 519

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion 20(2) of the CHALR, verification of the antecedents and the character of an employee under the CHALR is mandatory, is the Hon'ble Tribunal correct in stating that such a verification is not contemplated for a Power of Attorney under Regulation 18 of the CHALR, when the latter exercises greater power and authority over the firm, than an employee. (ii)     Is the Hon'ble Tribunal correct in concluding that the Regulations 18 and 20 of the CHALR are independent of each other in the light of Supreme Court's observation in the case of M/s. Giridhar & Sons - AIR 1986 SC 1499 to the effect that to avoid patent injustice, anomaly or absurdly or to avoid invalidation of law, the court would be well justified in departing f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Mahajan as in 1994 (70) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.). 3. Ld. Advocate Shri Murugappan for the respondents submits that a perusal of each of the 3 questions sought to be referred to the Hon'ble High Court would show that none of them relates to or involve a question of law for the following reasons :- (a)     Question No. 1 is a question of fact as to whether the particular regulation requires verification of antecedents or not and the question of who exercises greater power or authority is one which does not directly raise any question of law as such. (b)     As far as the question No. 2 is concerned, the issue involves a decision of the correctness or otherwise of the Tribunal's conclusion. He subm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e considered view that when the two Regulations are clearly worded and there is no scope for any doubt or weakness found in either of them, then there would be no need to depart from the so-called golden rule of construction by reading into this what is not written therein. Any stretching of the statutory provisions by itself is a dangerous exercise. Further, the Revenue in this question again merely challenges the correctness or otherwise of our decision with respect to the nature of these two Regulations. As has been held in the case of CC v. Jayanti Lal Chokshi & Others supra, correctness or otherwise of the Triubnal's decision can by itself not to be raised as a question of law. Therefore, on both these counts, we find that no question ....