1998 (6) TMI 96

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....strial Textiles v. Union of India), W.P. No. 809 of 1998 (Ruchi Fabrics Ltd. v. Union of India) and W.P. No. 829 of 1998 (Bidasaria Brothers v. Union of India) as common questions are involved in these petitions. 2. It may be mentioned here that earlier also petitioners were required to approach this Court for grant of certain reliefs to them. The earlier petitions have been disposed of and cop....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the D.B. of Delhi High Court in the matter of M/s. Jyoti Overseas Ltd. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in view of the categorical order passed by this Court, the appeal alone could have been heard on merits without there being any demand made in this regard while considering the application under Section 35F of the Act. My attention has also been drawn to the or....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ity concerned would take about 2 months time to-day to take up these appeals on merits. However, he has tried to support the impugned order Annexure P-1 on the ground that the Authority concerned had carefully considered the facts on record and only thereafter he had found that no prima facie case for stay or waiver of the pre-deposit was made by the petitioners. However, at this stage it is not n....