Xotik Frujus Private Limited v. Union Of India And ORS
1 913.WP.17393.24.docx Digitally signed by SAYYED SAEED ALI AHMED ALI Date:
2024.12.04 14:15:06 +0530 SAYYED SAEED ALI AHMED ALI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.17393 OF 2024 Xotik Frujus Private Limited ..
Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Ors.
..
Respondents _______________________________________________________________ Mr. Bharat Raichandani a/w Mr. Jasmine Dixit i/b UBR Legal advocates for the petitioner.
Mr. Karan Adik a/w Mrs. Sangeeta Yadav for respondents. _______________________________________________________________ CORAM : M. S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.
DATE : 3 December 2024 P.C.:- 1.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2.
The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 22 August 2024 on the grounds of alleged violation of principles of natural justice. 3.
Yesterday, when the matter was heard, Mr Raichandani, no doubt, based on instructions of the petitioner, submitted that the notices of hearing were not served upon the petitioner, and, therefore, this was a case of gross violation of principles of natural justice. He submitted that in such a situation, the petitioner should not be relegated to the alternate remedy of appeal otherwise available to challenge the impugned order dated 22 August 2024.
2 913.WP.17393.24.docx 4.
Further, yesterday, we do not recollect learned counsel for the petitioner reading out ground A.1 of the petition, in which there is an admission that the petitioner was served with the notice of the hearing to be held on 22 July 2024. Still, the same was allegedly 'inadvertently and mistakenly missed by the petitioner'.
5.
Believing that no notice was served upon the petitioner in this case, we called upon Mr.Adik, learned counsel for the respondent, to obtain instructions on the petitioner's submission. The matter was posted today for further hearing.
6.
Mr.Adik, at the outset, referred us to the ground A.1 of the petition, which reads as follows:
A.1 The petitioner states and submits that the impugned order contends that three hearing dates i.e. on 10.07.2024, 22.07.2024 & 05.08.2024, were fixed in the matter, and the Petitioner did not appear on the said dates. The Petitioner submits that above contention is completely incorrect. The Petitioner submits that, the hearing notices for hearing on 10.07.2024 and 05.08.2024 were never received by the Petitioner either physically, by E-mail or via GST portal. Therefore, the Petitioner could not attend the personal hearing on the above dates. Further, the hearing notice for the hearing
3 913.WP.17393.24.docx to be held on 22.07.2024 was received by the Petitioner via Email. However, the same was inadvertently and mistakenly missed by the petitioner. However, no further hearing notice was received by the Petitioner nor intimated to the Petitioner via other modes as well.
(emphasis supplied) 7.
Further, Mr.Adik pointed out that notice for a hearing on 5 August 2024 was sent by E-mail dated 31 July 2024 to the petitioner at the same E-mail ID at which the notice for the hearing scheduled on 22 July 2024 was sent, which the Petitioner admits having received. He also produced a screenshot of the notice that was sent for our consideration. This was in the morning session.
8.
At the request of Mr.Raichandani and to enable him to obtain instructions from the Petitioner, we deferred the hearing to this afternoon. Mr.Raichandani, based on the instructions from the petitioner, maintains that they received no such notice.
9.
Mr.Raichandani's submissions, which no doubt, based on the instructions, cannot be accepted. The instructions given to Mr.Raichandani cannot be believed given the circumstance that the notice of the hearing schedule for 22 July 2024 sent to in the same Email was received by the petitioner. There is no reason to disbelieve the
4 913.WP.17393.24.docx material placed on record by Mr.Adik based upon the bald denial of the petitioner or representatives of the petitioner. 10.
Mr. Adik, learned counsel for the respondent, also produced the notice dated 2 May 2024 informing the petitioner that the personal hearing is fixed for 10 July 2024. According to the dispatch register for the postal dock, the notice was sent to the petitioner on 27 June 2024. Therefore, the petitioner's contention that the notice was not received cannot be accepted.
11.
In this case, we are satisfied that the principles of natural justice and fair play were not breached. However, we are also satisfied that the petitioner made false statements before this Court in an attempt to obtain a favourable order alleging a failure of natural justice. The petitioner has been far from candid before this Court, and an impression was sought to be created that the impugned order was made without any notices of personal hearing when, in fact, the record shows otherwise. The self-serving denials inspire no confidence, and the Petitioner has attempted to mislead and suppress facts. 12.
Admittedly, the petitioner received the notice for the hearing to be held on 22 July 2024. By simply stating that the petitioner inadvertently or mistakenly missed the same, the petitioner could not complain of failure of natural justice. The authorities cannot be expected to go on
5 913.WP.17393.24.docx serving repeated notices until the petitioner chooses to appear. Fairness is not a one-way street.
13.
Therefore, on the ground that there is no failure of natural justice and further ground that the petitioner made a false statement or in any event was not candid to this Court, we dismiss this petition with costs of Rupees One Lakh payable to the Government's King Edward Memorial (KEM) Hospital, Parel within two weeks from today. We note that this matter consumed considerable judicial time. The case was adjourned on two occasions to enable counsel to obtain instructions. 14.
The petition is dismissed with costs. The compliance report regarding the cost payment should be filed before this Court by 6 January 2025.
(Jitendra Jain, J.) (M. S. Sonak, J.)