AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.M. Sapre, J.—Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record of the case, I find his petition to be misconceived and hence, merits dismissal.
If the petitioner says that they have to recover their dues from the respondent No. 3, then no body stops them from recovery it by resorting to the remedies available to them in law and by resorting to those remedies under which the dues are covered. No permission from the Court much less that of High Court is needed for that purpose. I fail to appreciate when the dues had become due for recovery under the Act (Central Excise) then why the petitioner and for whom, the petitioner waited for its recovery. Timely action ought to have been and should have been resorted to by the department for its realisation rather than to assert their right of having first or second charge on the assets of respondent No. 1. Every creditor whether secured or unsecured has a legal right to recover their dues if adjudicated in Court of Law from the respondent No. 3 by resorting to legal remedy available in law and no Court can slay it at the instance of another creditor. Remedy of such person may lay in those proceedings themselves wherein the recovery is being pursued under that Act by raising objection in execution if it is available or by filing an appeal under the said Act. No writ lies.
Petition, thus, fails and is dismissed in limine.