Senior Advocate Kevic Setalvad and advocate Pranay Goel, showing for collectors in linked petitions, strongly opposed any deferment of the remaining orders.
Setalvad argued {that a} bilateral settlement in a single case couldn’t stall orders in issues involving different collectors.
“I don’t assume, with the utmost respect, that this settlement, coming in on the 18th hour, so to talk, ought to have any bearing on the opposite issues.”
He stated the collectors had incurred substantial prices whereas pursuing the circumstances for practically two years and shouldn’t be compelled to argue them afresh earlier than one other bench.
Setalvad likened the scenario to a “purchase one, get eight free” association and argued that it shouldn’t be permitted.
Goel supported the objection and stated events couldn’t reopen proceedings when circumstances had reached the pronouncement stage.
“Your Lordships should go forward and pronounce all of the issues listed at this time. No matter penalties comply with, we don’t know whether or not petitions are going to be admitted or dismissed. The implications will comply with,” he stated.
