ASHOK TRADERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This group of 16 petitions relates to claim for refund made by one Kumar Prabhulal Shah, claiming to be the sole proprietor of Shah & Co. These petitions reached hearing on 14th September, 1987 and were argued and the Court was about to pass an order in favour of the Petitioners. However, as a large number of petitions were involved, it was suggested by the Court that the Petitioners' Advocates to prepare minutes of the Order and the petitions were adjourned to 18th September, 1987 for that purpose. Thereafter the petitions only reached hearing on 8th October, 1987 and were adjourned to 9th October, 1987. On 9th October, 1987 the Respondents pointed out orally to the Court the facts now stated on affidavit. The Respondents were directed to put these facts on affidavit and the Petitioner was directed to remain present in Court on the next occasion. The petitions were therefore adjourned to 12th October, 1987. On the 12th October, 1987 the Petitioner did not turn up in Court and the facts being prima facie gross, a bailable warrant was issued against the Petitioner and the petitions adjourned till today. Copies of the affidavits filed by the Respondents have been supplied to the Petitioners and no rejoinders have been filed.

(2.) The facts as set out by the Respondents are that in respect of claims for refund made in all these 16 petitions the Petitioners had earlier filed three petitions in this Court and had obtained orders for refund of all those amounts in those petitions. That pursuant to those orders in respect of 8 calims the Petitioners had in fact already received the amounts and have still filed these petitions claminig refund of those very amounts. The Respondents also allege that in respect of other 8 claims made in these petitions and that Orders for refund in Petitioners favour have already been passed yet the Petitioners have in these petitioners again prayed for an order for refund in respect of the same claims. It is pointed out that very cleverly in the earlier petitions the refund was claim is made on the basis of the Bills of Entries themselves. It is therefore argued that in this manner the Petitioners sought to make it therefore argued that in this manner the Petitioners sought to make it difficult for the two claims to be corelated and sought to receive the same amounts twice.

(3.) It is also pointed out that the Petitioners had earlier filed in this Court three petitions being Writ Petition No 2228 of 1986 (filed on 3rd September, 1986), Writ Petition No. 174 of 1987 (filed on 16th January, 1987) and Writ Petition No. 744 of 1987 (filed in February, 1987). It is pertinent to note that petitions Nos. 2228 of 1986 and 744 of 1987 which are filed in September, 1986 and February, 1987 are filed by the said Kumar Prabhulal Shah as the sole proprietor of Shah & Co. whereas Petition No 174 of 1987 which is filed in January, 1987 is signed by him as a partner of Shah & Co. and the firm is described as partnership firm. In all the present averments have been made that the Petitioners have not filed any other petition in this Court in respect of the subject matter of the said petition. Prima facie it would appear that the statement has been made knowing the same to be false as in all these petitions in order to induce this Court to pass an order in favour of the Petitioners, the following averment is made: