Anil Kumar Vig Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division and ors.

Anil Kumar Vig vs Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Sep 15, 2006

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/636475

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/636475
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Judge: Vinod K. Sharma, J.
Decided On: Sep 15, 2006
Subject: Civil
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: Civil
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Anil Kumar Vig

Respondent

Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred: Sardara Singh v. Punjab Khadi Village
Reported In: (2007)145PLR397

Excerpt

- vinod k. sharma, j.1. the present revision petition has been filed against the orders dated 16.10.2003 and 15.1.2004 passed by the learned courts below declining the prayer of the petitioner seeking to restrain the respondents from executing the orders passed against the partnership firm by resorting the coercive method of arrest.2. the learned courts below have rejected the application moved by the petitioner under order 39 rules 1 & 2 read with section 151 c.p.c. on the plea that no injunction can be granted against lawful means to be adopted by the party. the learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the judgment of this court in gomti devi v. kalka cooperative house building society limited 1989(2) l.r. 296 : 1988 p.l.j. 416 prays that arrest and detention of a person should be a last resort. the authority executing an order under order 67 of the punjab land revenue act is to first take other steps in case they do not fructify then only can resort to arrest. he has further relied upon the judgment of this court in civil writ petition no. 15006 of 2002 - sardara singh v. punjab khadi village & industries board and anr. decided on 9.2.2004 which is to the same effect. the learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 3 on instructions from mr. tara chand saini, superintendent, states that without resorting to other means as envisaged under section 67 the coercive methods will not be adopted.3. in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for respondents no. 1 to 3, this petition is dismissed as not pressed.

Full Judgment

Vinod K. Sharma, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed against the orders dated 16.10.2003 and 15.1.2004 passed by the learned Courts below declining the prayer of the petitioner seeking to restrain the respondents from executing the orders passed against the partnership firm by resorting the coercive method of arrest.

2. The learned Courts below have rejected the application moved by the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. on the plea that no injunction can be granted against lawful means to be adopted by the party. The learned Counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the judgment of this Court in Gomti Devi v. Kalka Cooperative House Building Society Limited 1989(2) L.R. 296 : 1988 P.L.J. 416 prays that arrest and detention of a person should be a last resort. The authority executing an order under Order 67 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act is to first take other steps in case they do not fructify then only can resort to arrest. He has further relied upon the judgment of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 15006 of 2002 - Sardara Singh v. Punjab Khadi Village & Industries Board and Anr. decided on 9.2.2004 which is to the same effect. The learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3 on instructions from Mr. Tara Chand Saini, Superintendent, states that without resorting to other means as envisaged under Section 67 the coercive methods will not be adopted.

3. In view of the statement made by the learned Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3, this petition is dismissed as not pressed.

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 2006 Same Parties Anil Kumar Vig vs Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Divisio... Same Subject Civil Same Judge Vinod K. Sharma, J.

Civil