The Deputy Assistant Commissioner vs. Matrix Traders

COURT NO.13

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 9918/2022

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04-05-2022 in WP No. 12843/2022 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati)

THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER & ANR. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

M/S MATRIX TRADERS REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR JARESH

Respondent(s)

( IA No.79602/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT )

WITH

SLP(C) No. 10438/2022 (XII-A) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.83452/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING <pre>C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)</pre>

SLP(C) No. 10358/2022 (XII-A) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.82454/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING <pre>C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)</pre>

SLP(C) No. 10344/2022 (XII-A) ( IA No.82300/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

SLP(C) No. 10560/2022 (XII-A) ( IA No.84460/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

SLP(C) No. 11010/2022 (XII-A) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.87025/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING <pre>C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)</pre>

Date: 22-07-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE

ignature Not Verified Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv. ﷺF Petitioner(s) Mr. Mahfooz A. Nazki, AOR Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Adv. Mr. Shaik Mohamad Haneef, Adv. Mr T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv.

Mr. K.V.Girish Chowdary, Adv. Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. S.K. Bagaria, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sameer Gupta, Adv. Indranil Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Nandwani, Adv. Mr. Ashish Shukla, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Shukla, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the material placed on record, we are not inclined to consider interference in the discretion as exercised in this matter by the High Court while passing the interim order, directing release of the goods and vehicles on payment of 1/4th of the demanded amount and by furnishing personal bond for the remaining amount.

In the circumstances of the case, we would, of course, leave it open for the petitioners to make other submissions before the High Court, including for alteration/modification of the interim order, as may be advised.

Subject to the observations foregoing, these petitions stand dismissed.

All pending applications stand disposed of.

(NEETA SAPRA) (RANJANA SHAILEY) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)