GARDEN CITY FASHIONS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE parties are common to all these petitions. However, the orders assailed are passed separately in each of the cases in view of the different contentions urged on merits while contending that the second respondent had not properly appreciated the reasons assigned by the petitioner and the same had not been appropriately considered in the appeal as well as second appeal. Though the factual aspects will have to be adverted separately in each of the petitions, common question with regard to the manner of consideration in the second appeal is a contention common to all these petitions. Hence, the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Brief facts in W.P.No.16075/2013

(2.) THE issue herein relates to the order of forfeiture dated 06.12.1999 (Annexure -B) passed by the second respondent under the system of revalidation during the year 1998. The reasons put forth for nonperformance was not accepted even by the Appellate Committee and the Second Appellate Committee. In that circumstance, the petitioner was before this Court in W.P.No.40667/2002 which was disposed of on 10.01.2008. Though the policy also was under challenge, this Court had rejected that contention. But, the manner of consideration made by the Appellate Committees was disapproved and an appropriate consideration of the petitioner's claim of nonperformance due to force -majeure was ordered.

(3.) THE issue involved in this petition relates to the order of forfeiture dated 15.11.2002 (Annexure -D) passed by the second respondent under the system of revalidation during the year 2001. The reasons put forth for non -performance was not accepted even by the Appellate Committee and the Second Appellate Committee. In that circumstance, the petitioner was before this Court in W.P.No.29538/2004 which was disposed of on 08.01.2008. Though the policy also was under challenge, this Court had rejected that contention. But, the manner of consideration made by the Appellate Committees was disapproved and an appropriate consideration of the petitioner's claim of non -performance due to force -majeure was ordered. Pursuant thereto, the Appellate Committee by its order dated 30.07.2008 (Annexure -N) has upheld the order passed by the second respondent. The petitioner had assailed the same in the second appeal. The Second Appellate Committee by the order dated 26.07.2012 (Annexure -P) has rejected the appeal. The petitioner is therefore before this Court in this petition. Brief facts in W.P.No.16077/2013