{"id":39922,"date":"2009-09-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/22-123-pioneer-industrial-estate-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2009"},"modified":"2017-02-20T21:30:46","modified_gmt":"2017-02-20T16:00:46","slug":"22-123-pioneer-industrial-estate-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/22-123-pioneer-industrial-estate-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"22-123 Pioneer Industrial Estate vs Union Of India on 17 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
22-123 Pioneer Industrial Estate vs Union Of India on 17 September, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: F.I. Rebello, D.G. Karnik<\/div>\n
                                            1\n\n    mpt\n              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                \n                   ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION\n                    CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.62 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                        \n    M\/s.Chemipol\n\n\n\n\n                                                       \n    122-123 Pioneer Industrial Estate\n    Subhash Road, Jogeshwari East,\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n    Mumbai 400 060                                      ..  Appellant\n\n\n     versus\n                             \n                            \n    1)    Union of India, \n    Law Ministry, Ayakar Bhavan,\n        \n\n\n    Mumbai 400 020.\n     \n\n\n\n    2)    The Commissioner of Central\n    Excise, Thane-II, Nav Prabhat, Chembur\n\n\n\n\n\n    4th floor, Ranade Road, Dadar,\n    Mumbai 400 028.                                        ..    Respondents\n\n\n\n\n\n                                           ...\n<\/pre>\n
    Mr.Ashok   Shetty   with   Mr.R.V.Shetty   and   Ms.Rita   K.   Joshi   for   the
\n    appellant.\n<\/p>\n
    Mr.  P.S. Jetly  for respondents.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:12 :::<\/span>
\n                                                2<\/span><\/p>\n
                                       CORAM : F. I. REBELLO AND
\n                                                     D.G. KARNIK, JJ<\/p>\n
                                    DATED :  17th  September 2009<\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGMENT:- (Per D.G.Karnik, J)<\/p>\n
    1.     This   appeal   is   directed   against   the   order   dated   27th  February <\/p>\n
    2006 passed by the Customs, Central Excise and Services Tax Appellate <\/p>\n
    Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) rejecting the application filed by the <\/p>\n
    appellant for restoration of its appeal for non prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
    2.     The appellant had filed an appeal before the Tribunal bearing <\/p>\n
    No.  E\/2822\/98   –   Mum challenging  the   order   in  original  dated  30th <\/p>\n
    April 1998 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).\n<\/p>\n
    The appeal was posted for hearing on 25th May 2005.  As the appellant <\/p>\n
    was absent, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.  Application filed by the <\/p>\n
    applicant for setting aside the order of dismissal for non prosecution <\/p>\n
    was rejected by the Tribunal.  Hence the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
    3.     Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   submitted   that   under   the <\/p>\n
    Central   Excise   Act,   1944   (for   short   “the   Act”)   the   Tribunal   has   no <\/p>\n
    power to dismiss  an appeal for default in appearance of an appellant.\n<\/p>\n
    Even if the appellant is absent, the Tribunal is required to  decide the <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:12 :::<\/span>
\n                                                3<\/span><\/p>\n
    appeal on merits.   In support, learned counsel referred to and relied <\/p>\n
    upon a decision of Gujarat High Court in Viral Laminates Vs. Union of <\/p>\n
    India, 1998(100) E.L.T. 335 (Guj.)  and the decision of the Delhi High <\/p>\n
    Court in Prakash Fabricators & Galvanizers Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Union of India, <\/p>\n
    2001(130) E.L.T 433 (Del.)<\/p>\n
    4.     Per contra, Mr.Jetly, learned counsel for the Revenue, submitted <\/p>\n
    that   today   all   Courts   and   Tribunals   are   flooded   with   litigation   and <\/p>\n
    there is a docket explosion of unprecedented magnitude.   When the <\/p>\n
    Tribunal is not in a position to decide appeals and other proceedings <\/p>\n
    before it in a reasonable time, it would not be appropriate to burden <\/p>\n
    the   Tribunal   with   the   task   of   deciding   appeals   on   merit   when   the <\/p>\n
    appellant himself is absent and\/or is not interested in prosecuting the <\/p>\n
    appeal.  We should not shut our eyes to the reality that if the Tribunal <\/p>\n
    is required to spend its valuable time in deciding the appeals on merits <\/p>\n
    when the appellant is absent, then valuable time of the Tribunal would <\/p>\n
    be   lost   without   hearing   the   other   appeals   which   are   pending   since <\/p>\n
    long.     He   further   submitted   that   in   any   event,   in   the   absence   of <\/p>\n
    assistance   from   the   appellant,   the   Tribunal   may   be   seriously <\/p>\n
    handicapped in deciding an appeal on merits and the possibility of the <\/p>\n
    Tribunal deciding the appeal erroneously   and laying down the law <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:12 :::<\/span>
\n                                                4<\/span><\/p>\n
    which may not be fully correct.   We should not therefore follow the <\/p>\n
    view   taken   by   the   Gujarat   and   Delhi   High   Courts   but   hold   that   a <\/p>\n
    Tribunal   can   dismiss   the   appeal   in   default   of   appearance   of   the <\/p>\n
    appellant.  While we see some merit in the submissions of Mr.Jetly, we <\/p>\n
    are not inclined to depart from the view taken by the two High Courts.\n<\/p>\n
    No other High Court has taken a different view.  Secondly, the Gujarat <\/p>\n
    High Court, for striking down Rule 20 of the Rules, has relied upon a <\/p>\n
    decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S.\n<\/p>\n
    Cheniappa Mudaliar, AIR 1969 SC 1068, wherein the Supreme Court <\/p>\n
    struck down  Rule  34  of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, <\/p>\n
    1946 which was similar to Rule 20 of the Rules.\n<\/p>\n
    5.     We   would   however   refer   to   the   observations   of   Hidayatullah, <\/p>\n
    Chief   Justice   (as   His   Lordship  then   was)  in   Sunderlal  Mannalal  Vs. <\/p>\n
    Nandramdas Dwarkadas  AIR 1958 MP 260 wherein it was observed:-\n<\/p>\n
                Now the Act does not give any power of dismissal.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                But   it   is   axiomatic   that   no   court   or   tribunal   is
\n                supposed to continue a proceeding before it when
\n                the party who has moved it has not appeared nor
\n                cared to remain present.  The dismissal, therefore, is
\n                an   inherent   power   which   every   tribunal
\n                possesses …”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:12 :::<\/span>
\n                                             5<\/span><\/p>\n
    This statement of law was approved by the Supreme Court in Dr. P.\n<\/p>\n
    Nalla Thampy Thera Vs. B.L. Shankar 1984 (Supp) SCC 631.  Again in <\/p>\n
    New India Assurance Co.Ltd. vs. R. Srinivasan<\/a> (2000) 3 SCC 242, the <\/p>\n
    Supreme Court observed at paragraph no.18:\n<\/p>\n
              “That every court or judicial body or authority, which
\n              has   a   duty   to   decide   a   list   between   two   parties,
\n              inherently possesses the power to dismiss a case in <\/p>\n
              default.  Where a case is called up for hearing and the <\/p>\n
              party is not present, the court or the judicial or quasi-
\n              judicial   body   is   under   no   obligation   to   keep   the <\/p>\n
              matter pending before it or to pursue the matter on
\n              behalf   of   the   complainant   who   had   instituted   the <\/p>\n
              proceedings.  That is not the function of the court or,
\n              for that matter of a judicial or quasi judicial body.  In <\/p>\n
              the absence of the complainant, therefore, the court
\n              will   be   will   within   its   jurisdiction   to   dismiss   the <\/p>\n
              complaint   for   non   prosecution.     So   also,   it   would
\n              have  the  inherent  power  and  jurisdiction  to  restore
\n              the complaint on good cause being shown for the non <\/p>\n
              appearance of the complainant.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    6.   It is thus clear that though part of the Rule 20 of the Rules has <\/p>\n
    been held to be unconstitutional by the Delhi High Court relying upon <\/p>\n
    the decision of the Supreme Court, we cannot altogether lose sight of <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:12 :::<\/span>
\n                                             6<\/span><\/p>\n
    the rule that every court or tribunal has an inherent power to dismiss a <\/p>\n
    proceeding for non prosecution when the petitioner\/appellant before it <\/p>\n
    does not wish to prosecute the proceeding.  In such a situation, unless <\/p>\n
    the   statute   clearly   requires   the   court   or   tribunal   to   hear   the <\/p>\n
    appeal\/proceeding   and   decide   it   on   merits   it   can   dismiss   the <\/p>\n
    appeal\/proceeding   for.     Of   course,   the   power   must   be   exercised <\/p>\n
    judiciously   and   taking   into   consideration   all   the   facts   and <\/p>\n
    circumstances of the case.  The Tribunal presently has its benches only <\/p>\n
    at four or five places in India.   An appellant who on account of his <\/p>\n
    place or residence or business being far away from the place of sitting <\/p>\n
    for the   Tribunal may not except at a high cost be able to attend the <\/p>\n
    hearing especially when as we know that the matters are adjourned for <\/p>\n
    several times.   In such an event, if the appellant   files on record his <\/p>\n
    submissions in writing, the Tribunal must decide the appeal on merits <\/p>\n
    on the basis of the said submissions.  In that case, the Tribunal would <\/p>\n
    not have a power to dismiss the appeal for but where   the appellant <\/p>\n
    inspite of notice is persistently  absent and the Tribunal on facts of the <\/p>\n
    case is of the view  that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting <\/p>\n
    the appeal, it can in exercise its inherent power to dismiss the appeal <\/p>\n
    for non-prosecution.  Of course, the conclusion of the Tribunal that the <\/p>\n
    appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal must be reached <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:12 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
    on the facts of each case and not merely on account of absence of an <\/p>\n
    appellant on a solitary occasion.\n<\/p>\n
    7.     In the present case,  the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal on the <\/p>\n
    absence   of   the   appellant   only   on   one   occasion.     The     fact   that   the <\/p>\n
    appellant immediately thereafter applied for restoration of the appeal <\/p>\n
    shows his intention that he was interested in prosecuting the appeal <\/p>\n
    and may be he had a justifiable cause for  his absence on one occasion.\n<\/p>\n
    In the circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have restored the appeal to <\/p>\n
    the file.\n<\/p>\n
    8.     Mr.Jetly then submitted that the impugned order arises out of a <\/p>\n
    second application for restoration of the appeal filed by the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
    Second application for restoration was not maintainable as the     first <\/p>\n
    application   was   dismissed.     As   we   have   held   that   initial   order   of <\/p>\n
    dismissal itself was without jurisdiction as the appeal was dismissed <\/p>\n
    for default without there being a power, the fact of dismissal of the <\/p>\n
    first application   would not come in the way of the petitioner.   The <\/p>\n
    Tribunal ought to have corrected its mistake on being brought to its <\/p>\n
    notice that petitioner was interested in prosecuting the appeal and as <\/p>\n
    such the Tribunal had no power to dismiss the appeal for default.  In <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:12 :::<\/span>
\n                                                8<\/span><\/p>\n
    the   light   of   that,   Tribunal   ought   not   to   have   dismissed   the   second <\/p>\n
    application on a technical ground.     For these reasons, the petition is <\/p>\n
    allowed and the matter is restored to file of the Tribunal.  The Tribunal <\/p>\n
    shall hear the appeal on merits after notice to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
    (D.G. KARNIK, J)                                                  (F.I. REBELLO, J)\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n                               \n                              \n        \n     \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                             ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:05:12 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court 22-123 Pioneer Industrial Estate vs Union Of India on 17 September, 2009 Bench: F.I. Rebello, D.G. Karnik 1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.62 OF 2009 M\/s.Chemipol 122-123 Pioneer Industrial Estate Subhash Road, Jogeshwari East, Mumbai 400 060 .. Appellant versus […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-39922","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\n22-123 Pioneer Industrial Estate vs Union Of India on 17 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/22-123-pioneer-industrial-estate-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"22-123 Pioneer Industrial Estate vs Union Of India on 17 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/22-123-pioneer-industrial-estate-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-20T16:00:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/22-123-pioneer-industrial-estate-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/22-123-pioneer-industrial-estate-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"22-123 Pioneer Industrial Estate vs Union Of India on 17 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-20T16:00:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/22-123-pioneer-industrial-estate-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1413,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/22-123-pioneer-industrial-estate-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/22-123-pioneer-industrial-estate-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/22-123-pioneer-industrial-estate-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2009\",\"name\":\"22-123 Pioneer Industrial Estate vs Union Of India on 17 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-20T16:00:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/22-123-pioneer-industrial-estate-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/22-123-pioneer-industrial-estate-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/22-123-pioneer-industrial-estate-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"22-123 Pioneer Industrial Estate vs Union Of India on 17 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"22-123 Pioneer Industrial Estate vs Union Of India on 17 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/22-123-pioneer-industrial-estate-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"22-123 Pioneer Industrial Estate vs Union Of India on 17 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/22-123-pioneer-industrial-estate-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-20T16:00:46+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/22-123-pioneer-industrial-estate-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/22-123-pioneer-industrial-estate-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"22-123 Pioneer Industrial Estate vs Union Of India on 17 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-20T16:00:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/22-123-pioneer-industrial-estate-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2009"},"wordCount":1413,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/22-123-pioneer-industrial-estate-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/22-123-pioneer-industrial-estate-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/22-123-pioneer-industrial-estate-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2009","name":"22-123 Pioneer Industrial Estate vs Union Of India on 17 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-20T16:00:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/22-123-pioneer-industrial-estate-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/22-123-pioneer-industrial-estate-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/22-123-pioneer-industrial-estate-vs-union-of-india-on-17-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"22-123 Pioneer Industrial Estate vs Union Of India on 17 September, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39922","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=39922"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39922\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39922"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39922"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39922"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}