Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/13797/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13797 of 2010
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13798 of 2010
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 17314 of 2006
To
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 17315 of 2006
=========================================================
UMA
TEXTILES - THROUGH DARSHANA B PATEL - PROPRIETOR - Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNION
OF INDIA & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR HASIT DILIP DAVE for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
MR YN RAVANI for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date : 14/10/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI)
1. Heard
Mr. Hasit Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Dave, has
relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Mahendra
Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Union of India reported
in 2008 (222) E.L.T 508 (Guj.), more particularly para
8 and 9, which read as under :-
“8. In the present
case, as the facts reveal, the Settlement Commission has not even
heard the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 16th
May, 2005. In the subsequent application seeking further extension of
time and payment by way of installments the petitioner had
categorically referred to its weak financial position and pendency of
case before the BIFR. The petitioner has also given reasons for the
weak financial position. Instead of passing an order without hearing
the petitioner, it would have been appropriate for the Settlement
Commission to have given a hearing to the parties and, if necessary,
called upon the petitioner to establish its case in support of its
prayer to grant further extension and facility of payment by
installments. The petitioner has discharged its liability when it was
permitted to make payment of outstanding interest by installments and
in these circumstances, the bonafides of the petitioner are required
to be accepted. The petitioner has also expressed its willingness to
make payment of interest on such delayed payments and by way of
proposal it has placed on record a sheet containing computation of
interest relatable to each of the installments paid from time to
time. Though initially, on behalf of the respondents it was submitted
that the rate of interest fixed by the Settlement Commission at 10%
may be adopted and be continued even in relation to the delayed
payments, both the parties have left it to the Court to decide the
appropriate rate of interest that may be applied in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
9. In light of what is
stated hereinbefore, the Court deems it appropriate that the
petitioner be directed to bear interest on delayed payments from time
to time at the rate of 6% p.a. taking into consideration the
prevailing market conditions and the bank rate. The Court feels that
in the interest of justice, rate of 6% p.a. would be fair and
reasonable.”
2. However,
Ms. Mandavia, learned counsel for the respondents requests for time
to take necessary instructions. List the matter on 19.10.2011.
[V.M.
SAHAI, J.]
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
/phalguni/
Top