Union of India & Ors. Vs. M/s Sony India Ltd.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 4158-59 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 9987-88 of 2000)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 9987-88 of 2000)
Petitioner: Union of India & Ors.
Respondent: M/s Sony India Ltd.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 4158-59 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 9987-88 of 2000)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 9987-88 of 2000)
Judges: S.P. BHARUCHA & RUMA PAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 21, 2000
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION
Articles 226, 136 – High Court directing Tribunal to hear appeals without pre-deposit – No reasons given. Held that order is unsustainable. Remanded back to hear writs afresh.
Held:
When a writ petition is disposed of, we would expect, however briefly, some discussion of what the “facts and circumstances of the case” are, a reference to the circulars that are made the basis of the decision and some explanation of how the terms of these circulars apply to the facts and circumstances of the case. An order of the kind under challenge disposing of the writ petition cannot be sustained.
(Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The order under appeal has been passed by a Division Bench of the High Court at Delhi. It has reversed the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal requiring the respondent before us to deposit a sum of Rupees twenty crores towards duty as a condition precedent for the hearing of the appeals filed by the appellant before the Tribunal. The order under challenge requires the Tribunal to hear the appeals without any pre-deposit. All that it says, which may be called reasoning is, “We have heard learned Counsel for the parties on the question of pre-deposit. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, and particularly, the Circulars No. 44/97, dated 30th September, 1997 and No. 20/98, dated 25th March, 1998, we direct the Tribunal to hear and decide the appeal filed by the petitioner on merits without insisting on any pre-deposit”.
3. When a writ petition is disposed of, we would expect however, briefly, some discussion of what the “facts and circumstances of the case” are, a reference to the Circulars that are made the basis of the decision and some explanation of how the terms of these Circulars apply to the facts and circumstances of the case. An order of the kind under challenge disposing of the writ petition cannot be sustained.
4. The civil appeals are allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. The Writ Petitions (C.W.P. No. 7472 of 1999 and C.M. No. 14825 of 1999) are remanded to the High Court to be heard and disposed of afresh, expeditiously.
5. No order as to costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. The order under appeal has been passed by a Division Bench of the High Court at Delhi. It has reversed the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal requiring the respondent before us to deposit a sum of Rupees twenty crores towards duty as a condition precedent for the hearing of the appeals filed by the appellant before the Tribunal. The order under challenge requires the Tribunal to hear the appeals without any pre-deposit. All that it says, which may be called reasoning is, “We have heard learned Counsel for the parties on the question of pre-deposit. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, and particularly, the Circulars No. 44/97, dated 30th September, 1997 and No. 20/98, dated 25th March, 1998, we direct the Tribunal to hear and decide the appeal filed by the petitioner on merits without insisting on any pre-deposit”.
3. When a writ petition is disposed of, we would expect however, briefly, some discussion of what the “facts and circumstances of the case” are, a reference to the Circulars that are made the basis of the decision and some explanation of how the terms of these Circulars apply to the facts and circumstances of the case. An order of the kind under challenge disposing of the writ petition cannot be sustained.
4. The civil appeals are allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. The Writ Petitions (C.W.P. No. 7472 of 1999 and C.M. No. 14825 of 1999) are remanded to the High Court to be heard and disposed of afresh, expeditiously.
5. No order as to costs.
