NATWAR TEXTILE PROCESSORS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] 1 S.C.R. 109 · Decided: 09-01-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

NATWAR TEXTILE PROCESSORS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
JANUARY 9, 1995 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
Administration of Justice-Abuse of process of Court-Show cause 
notice served in 1983-Excise duty allegedly payable by appellant is over 
Rupees ten crores-Notice not proceeded with as appellant filed writ petitions 
and appeals-Gross abuse of process of court-Appellant to pay cost of Rs. 
15,000 to respondents-Any duty found payable shall be paid by appellant 
with interest @18% p.a. from date of notice upto date of payment-Excise 
Authorities to dispose of matter expeditiously-No court or Tribunal shall 
interdict proceedings until final orders passed. 
A notice dated December 28, 1983 was served upon the appellant by 
the Central Excise Authorities alleging that the appellant had removed 
power loom cotton fabrics worth Rupees sixty two crores without payment 
B 
c 
D 
of excise duty. It was stated that the appellant wrongfully availed of 
exemption notification and cleared the goods in an illicit manner. The 
appellant challenged the validity of the show cause notice by filing a writ E 
petition which was dismissed in September, 1984. Special Leave Petition 
filed against the judgment of the High Court was also dismissed. The 
appellant applied to the Central Excise Authorities for inspection of 
certain documents. The request was rejected. The appellant filed a writ 
petition against the said refusal and withdrew it without seeking and F 
obtaining the leave of the High Court to approach it again. He sought to 
file an appeal before the Tribunal which was not maintainable in law. On 
the Tribunal expressing a doubt as to the maintainability of the appeal, 
the appellant withdrew the appeal unconditionally. It was dismissed as 
withdrawn in May, 1986. Another writ petition was filed. against the very 
same order of refusal of inspection of documents. The petition could not G 
be disposed of early because the records were missing. The records had to 
be re-constructed. The writ petition was dismissed with strong condemna-
tion of the appellant's conduct. Special Leave Petition was filed without 
disclosing all the facts. The appellant obtained an interim order in Decem-
ber, 1989. The SLP was posted only after a period of five years. 
H 
109 
110 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
The appellant submitted that his request for inspection of the docu-
·' 
ments was justified one. It was also stated that similar request for inspec~ 
-~; 
tion of documents was pending consideration in the case of another 
assessee. 
B 
Disposing of the matter, this Court 
HELD : 1. The fact in the instant case disclose how persons without 
scruples are abusing the system of administration of justice in this 
~ 
country. The courts are therefor honest litigation. Persons like the 
petitioners try to use the courts to advance their oblique ends and in the 
c process the courts, the very system, is getting a bad name, In this case, for 
a period of eleven years, the show cause notice could not be proceeded with. 
The appellant had been doing this because he thought that even if be was 
lwble to pay any duty pursuant to the show cause notice, be would not be 
liable to pay interest thereon since the Central Excise Act did not provide 
for granting of interest. In /the circumstances of the case the very filing of 
D the writ petition was a gross abuse of the process of the court and so was 
~~-
the present special leave petition/civil appeal. It is necessary in the interest 
of justice that such tactics should not be allowed to pass muster and 
should, in no event, be allowed to benefit the persons indulging in them. 
Stringent terms have to be imposed so that not only the appellant but 
E others minded like him should know that they should not play with the 
courts and that if they do so, they should not complain if they are mauled 
in the process. This is the price of abusing the process of court. The court 
r 
which is seized of the matter has the undoubted power to make such order 
~ 
as it thinks ·just and necessary to meet the ends of justice. It is the 
·1 
i-espondent who has invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court and this 
F 
Court. [115-H, 116-A-H, 117-A] 
2. The revenue authorities had been lax in not moving for early 
disposal of the matter, in this cburt at any rate. That does not however 
explain, condone or justify the conduct of the appellant. So far as plea of 
fair

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.