✦ Bombay High Court

Judgment · High Court

Writ Petition No. 198 of 2010S VAZIFDAR U D SALVI, S VAZIFDAR, U D SALVI

Judgment

1. M/s. Rukminirama Steel Rollings Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. L-17, Cuncolim Industrial Estate, Cuncolim – Goa. Through its Director Shri B. Radhavendra

2. Shri B. Radhavendra, Director, Aged 52 Years, residing at D 11, L.A. Marvel Colony, Dona Paula, Panaji. (Registered Address) V e r s u s

1.

Union of India through the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue North Block, New Delhi – 400 001.

2.

Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, ICE House, EDC Complex, Patto Plaza, Panaji-Goa.

3.

The Manager, State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, State Bank Staff Training Centre Bldg., Panaji – Goa. (Registered Addresses) ...... Petitioners ...... Respondents Mr. D. Lawande, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Asst. Solicitor General for Respondent nos. 1 and 2. Coram :- S. J. VAZIFDAR U. D. SALVI, JJ. Date : 17 th March, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (S. J. Vazifdar, J.) Rule, is made returnable and heard forthwith.

2. In view of the Circular bearing no. 788/21/2004-CX dated 25.05.2004 -2- and, in view of the fact that the Appellate Bench is not presently available, the Petitioner requires protection against the invocation of the Bank Guarantee by Respondent no.2. It is only for this limited purpose that the Writ Petition is disposed of by the following Order : ORDER The invocation of the bank guarantee by Respondent no.2 shall remain stayed pending the Petitioners' application for stay before the Appellate Bench. This Order is subject to the Petitioner filing an Appeal on or before

05.04.2010. In the event of an Appeal not being filed, the stay shall stand automatically vacated. Further, this Order is subject to the Petitioners keeping the bank guarantee renewed each time atleast 15 days prior to the expiry thereof, failing which, the Order stands automatically vacated without further orders. S. J. VAZIFDAR, J. U. D. SALVI, J. arp/*

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Writ Petition No. 198 of 2010). ← Search more judgments