2025 (10) TMI 1382

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dated 23.08.2024. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to petitioner. Petitioner was not even aware of said proceedings, till, an amount of Rs.54,86,263/- was debited from its electronic ledger. It is due to not being aware of initiation or pendency of proceedings, that petitioner therein could not join therein. Therefore, this writ petition should be entertained by this Court as there is gross violation of principles of natural justice. Otherwise also, show cause notice (DRC-01) and Order in Original had been passed de hors the provisions of law without recording any reasons, displaying total non-application of mind. It is, thus, prayed that this writ petition be allowed. 3. Having hea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erence by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. All pleas raised before us are very well within the realm of consideration of Appellate Authority. It is a settled position that interference by Court in such like matters at this stage has to be minimal. Gainful reference in this regard can be made to judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon and others, 2010(8) SCC 110, wherein it has been held as under:- "18. While expressing the aforesaid view, we are conscious that the powers conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, directio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... nation. Therefore, the High Court should be extremely careful and circumspect in exercising its discretion to grant stay in such matters. Of course, if the petitioner is able to show that its case falls within any of the exceptions carved out in Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad AIR 1969 SC 556, Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai (1998) 8 SCC 1 and Harbanslal Sahnia and another v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others (2003) 2 SCC 107 and some other judgments, then the High Court may, after considering all the relevant parameters and public interest, pass appropriate interim order. xxx xxx xxx xxxx 25. In Raj Kumar Shivhare v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement....