RUBBER PRODUCTS Vs. CEGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD finally with consent of both the counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE issue involved in this writ is heard and decided along with this writ by me in W.P. No. 2487 of 2000.1, therefore, do not consider it necessary to repeat those very facts and legal submissions while disposing of this writ, as it will result in duplication of the same reasoning in this writ, as well. This Court has dealt with the submissions argued and dismissed the writ but with some observations.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner had made legal submissions. They were dealt with and rejected in other petition. Learned counsel then also made attempt to assail the order of Tribunal by taking me to the controversy involved on merits of the appeal and contended that a case of full stay was made out before the appellate Tribunal and hence it should have granted absoluate stay rather than partial i.e. 50% of the total demand. Even this submission was considered by me in other petition and was rejected. The reasoning assigned does apply to this case as well. Even perusal of the impugned order indicate that it does not call for any interference, as it is quite a reasoned one.