Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Case Laws
Home Case Index All Cases Customs HC Customs - HC
Law
Court
Citation -
Landmark
Order by
 

 

Customs - High Court - Case Laws

Showing 6601 to 6620 of 6624 Records

  • 1958 (2) TMI 1 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

    SUNITI KUMAR SAHA Versus COLLECTOR OF LAND CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA

    ... ...
    ... ... nd Customs, dated the 21st January, are quashed and a writ in the nature of certiorari will issue therefor. The matter will now go back and be dealt with in accordance with law. Interim orders, if any, are vacated. There will be no order as to costs.


  • 1957 (9) TMI 1 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

    KANTILAL LALUBHAI AND CO. Versus GS. VASWANI

    ... ...
    ... ... am definitely of the opinion that there has been gross delay and on the preliminary point. I hold on account of this gross delay that the petition should not be entertained. The Rule is therefore discharged. The petition stands dismissed with costs.


  • 1957 (8) TMI 1 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

    SHU CHAO NAN Versus STATE

    ... ...
    ... ... ve evidence that the article in question is really gold. My conclusion, therefore, is that the prosecution has not established its case in accordance with law. I would accordingly allow this appeal and set aside the order of conviction and sentence.


  • 1957 (7) TMI 1 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

    ARTHUR ALMEIDA Versus STATE

    ... ...
    ... ... the conviction and sentences passed by the learned Magistrate and order that the appellants be acquitted of the charges against them. Appellant Arthur Almeida will be released and appellant Sergt. R.S. Hottinger will be discharged from the bailbond.


  • 1957 (5) TMI 2 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

    PSNM RAMALINGAM CHETTIAR Versus ASST. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS

    ... ...
    ... ... The result is W. P. Nos. 374 and 375 of 1957 are allowed and the orders refusing refund of the excess customs duty are set aside W. P. Nos. 807 and 1016 of 1956 are dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs in any of the writ petitions.


  • 1957 (2) TMI 3 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

    R. SETHURAJAN Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS

    ... ...
    ... ... der is also without jurisdiction and the proper order to have passed was to have directed the return of Rs. 4000 to the petitioner. The rule is accordingly made absolute and the impugned order is set aside. There will however be no order as to costs.


  • 1957 (2) TMI 2 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

    MERCHANTS & TRADERS LTD. Versus RK. HABBU

    ... ...
    ... ... h 1(a) of the prayer to the petition. There will be also a writ in the nature of a mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to the same and not to take any steps for the realisation of the excess duty. There will be no order as to costs.


  • 1957 (2) TMI 1 - HIGH COURT OF PATNA

    GAJANAND PERIWAL Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX. AND LAND CUSTOMS

    ... ...
    ... ... ts made in the report of the Assistant Collector of Kalimpong, deal with the case and make a fresh order in accordance with law. I would accordingly allow this application, but not propose to make order as to costs of the hearing of this application.


  • 1956 (11) TMI 31 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    Collector Of Customs, Madras Versus AHA. Rahiman

    ... ...
    ... ... he respondents' case having regard to the fact that they were misled by the advice of the Supenintendent of Central Excise. The appeal is allowed and W.P.No. 642 of 1954 is dismissed, but in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.


  • 1956 (7) TMI 1 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

    SHAH TRIKAMDAS DAMJI Versus S. VENKATESAN

    ... ...
    ... ... sed on behalf of the Petitioner. The petition succeeds and the Rule will be made absolute. A writ of certiorari will issue against the Respondent quashing the order made by him. The Respondent will pay the costs of the Petitioner fixed at Rs. 250/-.


  • 1955 (9) TMI 2 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

    AHA RAHIMAN Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS

    ... ...
    ... ... to show cause, nor an opportunity to prove his innocence before the penalty was imposed, the order of the Collector of Customs imposing the fine is quashed, as illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioner will have his cost of this writ petition.


  • 1955 (8) TMI 1 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

    COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY Versus RAMCHAND SOBHRAJ WADHWANI

    ... ...
    ... ... em 61(8). Section 21 applies to entirely different set of facts which are not present before us. 10.Therefore, in our opinion, the learned Judge was right in the view that he took. The result is that the appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs.


  • 1955 (7) TMI 1 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

    RAMCHAND SOBHRAJ WADHWANI Versus BN. BANERJI

    ... ...
    ... ... nt from enforcing payment of any duty higher than 30 per cent and directing him to release the goods in so far as they have been detained for payment of duty upon payment of 30 per cent duty. Respondent to pay the petitioner s costs fixed at Rs. 250.


  • 1954 (8) TMI 1 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

    MOHANDAS ISSARDAS Versus AN SATTANATHAN, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    ... ...
    ... ... f Rs. 500/- deposited for costs, and liberty to the respondents attorneys in appeal No. 70/X of 1954 to withdraw the sum of Rs. 500/- deposited by the appellants attorneys, and to apply the said sum in part satisfaction of the order for costs herein.


  • 1952 (9) TMI 2 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

    LALA GOPIKISSEN GOKULDAS Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS

    Confiscation, fine and penalty (Customs) - Import trade control....... + More


  • 1952 (9) TMI 1 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

    CHHOGUMAL KODUMAL Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    ... ...
    ... ... der imposed a penalty on the petitioner, it was not seriously sought to be supported on behalf of the respondents at the Bar. In my opinion, therefore, a fair order for costs would be that the petitioner should pay half the costs of the respondents.


  • 1952 (6) TMI 1 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

    MONI BANERJI Versus COLLECTOR OF LAND CUSTOMS

    Writ jurisdiction - Natural justice - Adjudication - Confiscation, fine - Charge-sheet....... + More


  • 1952 (5) TMI 1 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

    ATUL CHANDRA DUTTA Versus UNION OF INDIA

    ... ...
    ... ... proceedings from respondents 3 and 4. Hearing fee is assessed at three gold mohurs. The rule as against respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 5 is discharged and the petitioner will pay the costs of respondent No. 5 hearing fee being assessed at two gold mohurs.


  • 1952 (2) TMI 2 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

    SAKUNTALA BAI Versus CUSTOMS INSPECTOR, REDDICHAVADI

    ... ...
    ... ... e lower court therefore cannot be supported and the dismissal and discharge are set aside and the present learned District Magistrate is directed to take the case on file and dispose of it according to law in the light of the observations made above.


  • 1952 (2) TMI 1 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

    ASSTT. COLLR. OF CUS. FOR APPRAISEMENT Versus SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL

    ... ...
    ... ... llant s counsel s argument based on Section 198 of the Act, the matter has been exhaustively dealt with by my Lord. I have nothing to add. 111.In the result I entirely agree with what has fallen from my Lord. The appeal must be dismissed with costs.


 
 
 
Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version