Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (1.74 seconds)
Documents citing Collector Of Customs, Madras vs A.H.A. Rahiman on 16 November, 1956

Kumaran (T.P.) vs Kothandaraman (R.), Commissioner Of ... on 7 October, 1961

The decision in Collector of Customs, Madras v. A. H. A. Rahiman [A.I.R. 1957 Mad. 496] is yet one more case where an order of an inferior tribunal was held to be a nullity. There was an appeal therefrom which was dismissed confirming the order of the authority of the first instance. It was held that where the order of the inferior tribunal was a nullity such an order would fall outside the scope of the rule of merger. That was a case where the Collector of Customs passed an order of confiscation and penalty without giving a show-cause notice to the petitioner and without holding any inquiry at all. It was consequently held that the order contravened every principle of natural justice and must be deemed to be a nullity. The High Court of Madras in that case was dealing with several writ appeals in one of which there was no such fundamental defect by way of contravention of principles of natural justice such as the absence of notice or inquiry. In that case the learned Judges observed that where the proceedings of the Collector of Customs were properly initiated after notice to the respondent, the mere circumstance that the order was vitiated by a wrong assumption that the respondent had a branch within the jurisdiction of the High Court, would not make the order a nullity. It is clear, therefore, that every defect in a proceeding does not make the order of the authority of the first instance a nullity. The defect must be concerning either want of jurisdiction or excess of jurisdiction or a patent violation of the principles of natural justice, such as want of notice or inquiry. It is such a defect which would render an order null and void and which would take the case out of principle of merger. But where an order is passed after due notice of charges and after an inquiry, where the delinquent has given an opportunity to be heard and where he files a detailed statement, even if there is some defect in the course of the proceedings, there would be no question of a nullity. In order to succeed. Mr. Vakil, therefore, has to establish that there was anyone of these infirmities rendering the order of the Commissioner a nullity.
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - J M Shelat - Full Document

Premchand Lalchand vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 20 August, 1957

Chief among them is the decision of Allahabad High Court, reported in Azmat Ullah v. Custodian, Evacuee Property, (S) AIR 1955 All 435 (FB) (G); Dungardas v. Custodian, Rajas-than, AIR 1956 Raj 163 (H); Collector of Customs v. A.H.A. Rahiman, (S) AIR 1957 Mad 496 (I); and Joginder Singh v. Director, Rural Rehabilitation, (S) AIR 1955 Pepsu 91 (J).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 24 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

Madura Mills Co., Ltd. vs The State Of Madras on 13 September, 1961

In Collector of Customs v. A. H. A. Rahiman (1957) 2 M.L.J. 41, this Court had to consider the question whether a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution can issue to the Collector of Customs, Madras, when his order Was affirmed by the Central Board of Revenue at New Delhi. The Collector of Customs, Madras, was an authority within the territorial limits of the writ jurisdiction of this Court but the Central Board of Revenue, New Delhi, was outside such jurisdiction. In dealing with: this contention; the learned Judges observed at page 50 :
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

M. Shaikh Dawood vs Collector Of Central Excise, Madras on 20 April, 1960

In Collector of Customs, Madras v. Rahiman , a Bench of this Court held, "On a proper construction of the third column of Section 167(8) of Act VIII of 1878, the amount of Rs. 1000 specified therein is not the maximum limit of penalty which can be imposed by the customs authorities. The word 'or' makes it perfectly clear that the customs authorities are given the alternative and ft is left to them to impose a penalty, which satisfied either the first condition or the second."
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next