Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (1.14 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Rai Bahadur Shreeram Durga Prasad (P) ... on 19 November, 1968

Euresian Equipments & Chemicals Ltd. ... vs The Collector Of Customs And Ors. on 24 July, 1979

16. Mr. Bose has next submitted that the decisions of the Division Bench in the case of Jute Investment Company, (1973) 77 Cal WN 501, and also in the case of Thomas Duff and Co. (India) P. Ltd., 1976 Calcutta High Court Notes, 242, (also (1976) 80 Cal WN 309) are not of any material assistance in deciding the present case. He argues that the said two decisions had indeed rested on various other grounds and the question of liability when the goods have in fact been exported and the meaning of export goods had come up for consideration only incidentally in these two cases. He submits that if the views expressed by the said Division Benches on these two questions can be said to be decisions of the said two Division Benches, the decisions of the Division Benches on this aspect are not correct. He has commented that the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Jute Investment Co. Ltd. had really been based on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Shreeram Durga Prasad (P) Ltd., .
Calcutta High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 27 - A N Sen - Full Document

Mohibali Roashanali Naser vs Union Of India And Ors. on 23 September, 1988

25. In view of the aforesaid decisions and in view of my findings that the proceedings limited by the respondent No.2 for adjudication are without the basis of law and without jurisdiction, the same will have to be struck down,. It may be noted that in the case of Union of India v. Shreeram Durga Prasad (P) Ltd. Reported in in similar circumstances the Supreme Court had interfered at the stage of issue of the show cause notice and had struck it down.
Bombay High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Dlf Limited vs Sebi on 13 March, 2015

206. Reliance placed by the counsel for appellants on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Rai Bahadur Shreeram Durga Prasad (P) Ltd. (Supra) is misplaced. In that case Apex Court has held that the customs authorities were only required to see that no goods are exported without furnishing the prescribed declaration and once that stage has passed and thereafter if the declaration was found to contain false/incorrect statements, then, it was for the Reserve Bank/the Director of Enforcement to take penal action and it was not open to the customs authorities to take penal action. In the present case, SEBI is the authority to ensure compliance of the Guidelines issued by it and SEBI is the authority to take action if the Guidelines are violated.
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 94 - Cited by 2 - J P Devadhar - Full Document

The Jay Engineering Works Ltd. vs M.G. Wagh And Ors. on 14 July, 1972

It appears that the attention of the learned Judges of the Mysore High Court was not drawn to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rai Bahadur Shriram Durgaprasad, (supra), to which I have earlier referred, and the effect of that decision was not considered by the Division Bench of the Mysore High Court. But quite apart from this, it appears that the exporter in the case before the Mysore High Court had pleaded guilty to the charge of over-invoicing made by the Director of Enforcement and it was in this background that the decision of the Mysore High Court has to be considered. In that case, again, there was admittedly a difference between the declaration of the value under Section 12 (1) of the Act and the price paid by the foreign buyer. For these reasons, I think, the Mysore decision is not of any assistance in determining the questions with which we are concerned in this appeal.
Calcutta High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

The Assistant Collector Of Customs, ... vs United India Minerals Ltd. on 12 June, 1975

5. So far as contravention of Section 12 (1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act is concerned, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in (Union of India v. Shreeram Durgaprasad) , the learned trial Judge has held that the notice is without jurisdiction. No arguments have been advanced before us disputing this decision of Sabyasachi Mukharji. J. The contentions before us were confined to Sections 113, 114 and other relevant sections of the Customs Act, 1962.
Calcutta High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

The Jay Engineering Works Ltd. vs M.G. Wagh And Ors. on 28 March, 1973

21. Mr. Roy Chowdhury then submitted that the view of the Madras High Court's Division Bench was supported by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rai Bahadur Shreeram Durga Prasad, . In this case, the respondents were exporters of manganese ore. They had exported large quantities of manganese ore after ostensibly complying with the formalities of law, But in reality they had under-invoiced the various consignments sent by them and had failed to repatriate foreign exchange of the value of about 3 crores of rupees obtained by them as price of the exported manganese ore. The customs authorities issued several notices to the respondents to show cause why action should not be taken against them for contravening Section 12 (1) read with Section 23-A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and Section 19 read with Section 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act. The respondents applied under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the notices and prohibiting further action on those notices. The Appeal Bench of the Madras High Court (ILR 1968 (3) Mad 421) reversing the decision of the Single Judge (1967 (1) Mad LJ 197) allowed the petition. The Supreme Court by a majority judgment dismissed the appeal and held that the notices issued to the respondents were invalid as the offences alleged did not fall within Section 23-A of the Act. It appears from the majority judgment of Mr. Justice Hegde at page 1609 in paragraph 31 that it was not disputed before the Supreme Court that the petitioners were liable to be dealt with under Section 23 and were punishable under Section 23 (1) (b). In view of this concession Mr. Justice Hegde in paragraph 34 at page 1611 has been pleased to observe:
Calcutta High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S Mukharji - Full Document
1   2 3 Next