In Nidhi Texties v. CC (Adjn), 2015-TIOL-597-HC-MUM-Cus, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay criticised the CESTAT for passing very detailed stay order, wonder if so much time is spent over interlocutory matter, how will the tribunal find time for final disposal? For professionals practicing in this field, it is nothing to new to see criticisms to the contrary, that the Tribunal has not entered clear findings, nor distinguished the case laws, so on and so forth. Now, if the tribunal passes detailed order, it is charged of wasting time. How many times haven't we challenged interlocutory orders in appeals or writ jurisdiction assailing it on the ground of failing to consider all the arguments and precedents? It seems to be a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't". From the perspective of justice, it is better that the appellate authorities commit the error of passing detailed order rather than pass cryptic order to save time. Interlocutory matters should not become victim of proverbial "justice hurried is justice buried".

Gururaj B N 13/03/2015