Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/264/2009 of SARWA SHRI ISHWAR STEELS Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND and OTHERS on 30 December 2009
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 264 of 2009 Sarwa Shri Steels Limited … Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others …….. Respondents Mr. S.K. Posti, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Advocate for the respondents. Coram: Hon’ble
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Special Appeal No. 264 of 2009 Sarwa Shri Steels Limited … Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others …….. Respondents Mr. S.K. Posti, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Advocate for the respondents.
Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J.
J.S. Khehar, C.J.(Oral)
The appellant has approached this court, so as to assail the order dated 24.12.2009, rendered by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2159 of 2009, declining interim relief to the appellant.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, who has tried to tender an explanation of the merits of the claim of the appellant based on section 76 of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005. It is not necessary to examine the instant submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant on the merits of the claim, as the same will be adjudicated at the time of final disposal of Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2159 of 2009. Since no irreparable loss shall be suffered by the appellant, if the impugned order passed by the authorities, under the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005, is not stayed, we are satisfied that it is not necessary for us to interfere with the order rendered by the learned Single Judge on 24.12.2009.
Despite our conclusion, hereinabove, we are of the view that since a monetary liability has been fastened on the appellant, it would be just and appropriate to direct the learned Single Judge to dispose of the main writ petition, as expeditiously as possible.
The Special Appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(B.C. Kandpal, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.)
30.12.2009