SHYAM FERRO ALLOYS LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point raised in this writ petition is that the Tribunal while remanding the matter to the authority cannot put a condition depositing of Rs. 20 lakhs. At the first blush, this Court was convinced that if the Tribunal was of the opinion that the order of the authority cannot be sustained and the matter is required to be considered afresh, while making the remand, the Tribunal could not have put an onerous condition, but my attention was drawn to the submissions of the petitioners before the Tribunal where the petitioners offered voluntarily to deposit a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs. The petitioner tried to contend before this Court that the aforesaid submission was made by the Advocate representing the petitioners without taking a specific instruction in this regard.

(2.) It is vehemently submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the concession made by a lawyer is not binding on the litigant. In support of the aforesaid contention, the learned Advocate for the petitioners has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Council for Research in Ayurveda & Siddha & Anr. v/s. Dr. K. Santhakumari, reported in : (2001) 5 SCC 60 is placed.

(3.) I am afraid that the said decision has at all any manner of applicability in the present case. In paragraph '12' of the said judgment, the Apex Court held that the admission or concession made by the learned Counsel on proposition of law does not bind his client. Upon reading the order impugned in this writ petition, this Court finds that the aforesaid concession and/or admission does not relate to law.