Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (1.14 seconds)
Documents citing Abdul Aziz Aminudin vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 February, 1963

Criminal Revision No. 121/07 1 Abdul ... vs State on 21 August, 2007

1. This is a revision petition directed against the order dated 31.7.2007 passed by Ld. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi on an application of revisionist in which he prayed that his passport no. E- 6388206 be released on superdari. Ld. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the said application on the ground that applicant who was an accused in case FIR No. 218/07, PS IGI Airport was using the passport on which ECNR stamp was found to be forged. Since this passport is the case property and the challan has not yet been filed so far, Ld. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate declined the prayer for release of the passport. However liberty Criminal Revision No. 121/07 2 Abdul Aziz Vs State was given to the applicant to move a fresh application after filing of challan or final report.
Delhi District Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bennett Coleman & Co. & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 30 October, 1972

(1) John Chimpman Gray, the Nature and Sources of the Law, Second Edition 825 In Abdul Aziz Aminuddin v. State of Maharashtra(1), this Court said that the power conferred under s. 3(1) of the Act (Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947) is not restricted merely to prohibiting or restricting imports at the point of entry but extends also to controlling the subsequent disposal of the goods imported and that the person licensed to import goods would be amenable to the orders of the licensing authority with respect to the way in which those goods are to be utilized.
Supreme Court of India Cites 62 - Cited by 330 - S M Sikri - Full Document

R.K. Industries vs Collector Of Customs And C. Ex. on 26 October, 1988

The said case of East India Commercial Company was distinguished by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Aziz v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 1470 observing that the case of East India Commercial Company, supra was decided on the basis of Notification No. 23-ITC/43 dated July 1,1943 and Notification No. 2-ITC/48 dated March 6,1948 issued under Rule 84 of the Defence of India Rules which by virtue of Section 4 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 were deemed to have been issued under that Act and subsequent to that there is a change in law. The relevant observations made therein runs thus -
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 38 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Swastika Woollen Industries (P) Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 5 June, 1992

True it is that the powers conferred under Section 3(1) is not restricted merely to prohibiting or restricting imports at the time of point of entry of goods, but extends also the subsequent disposal of the goods imported and it is not for the courts to decide the policy matters and, therefore, on the authority of the Calcutta High Court and applying the principle laid down in Abdul Aziz's case (supra) decided by the Supreme Court the power of restriction is there under Section 3 of the Act - but the mere clothing with the power is not the complete answer to the questions raised before me. Since power has to be exercised in accordance with the provisions of law and cannot be exercised in an arbitrary manner. The power has to be exercised and the orders are accordingly required to be issued for cogent and sound reasons which are germane to the object sought to be achieved.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 27 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Best And Co. vs Additional Collector Of Customs And ... on 18 December, 1964

23. The learned Standing Counsel referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Abdul Aziz v. State of Maharashtra . This was an appeal against an order convicting the appellant of the offence under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, for contravention of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955. The appellant was the chairman of a co-operative Society and as such, applied for and obtained a licence for import of art silk yarn by the co-operative society. The licence that was issued, was subject to a condition that the goods would be utilised only for consumption as raw material in the licence-holder's factory and no portion would be sold to any party. The appellant caused the goods to be imported through a firm of financiers. Part of the goods were utilised in accordance with the condition mentioned above, but part was sold by the financing firm. The appellant and other members of the society were prosecuted for violation of Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act. They were acquitted by the trial court, but were convicted on appeal. There was a further appeal to the Supreme Court and dealing with this appeal, the Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in (supra) and distinguished that case on the ground, that the condition there was imposed prohibiting the importer from selling the goods, under the terms of the Notification No. 2/ITC/48 dated March 6, 1948. which provided for imposing a condition in the licence to the effect that the importer should not dispose of the goods without the written permission of the licencing authority or any person authorised by him. It was held that the licencing authority under the said notification was competent to impose only such conditions as might be expethent from the administrative point of view. But it was held in the case of that the licence was issued under the Imports (Control) Order 1955, Clause 5(2) of which was wide enough to permit the imposition of a condition which was outside the provisions of the said Notifications. It was further held that breach of a condition of the licence was a contravention of Sub-clause (iv) of Clause 5 of the Imports (Control) Order, 1956, and that if the licencee did not comply with the conditions of the licence about the use of the imported goods, he contravened the order under the Act and hence made himself liable to punishment under Section & of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Bank Of India And Anr. vs The National Iron And Steel Co. Ltd. And ... on 31 July, 1972

"We accept the fourth contention that it is the Association, the licensee, which alone could contravene the conditions of the licence and thus contravene the order * * *" The fourth contention referred to above was to the effect that the Association was the licensee and therefore a contravention of the condition of the licence would be committed only by the Association and not by its Chairman and consequently, it would be the Association which should have been tried for the alleged offence under Section 5 of the said Act of 1947 and not the Chairman. From the facts of the case before the Supreme Court it appears that altogether seven members who were powerloom weavers formed an Association. The Chairman of the Association applied for and obtained a licence for the import of certain quantity of art silk yarn by the Association. There were similar restrictions regarding the users of the goods in the licence holders factory only and the said goods were not to be sold to any other party. The goods were imported through Warden and Co. who financed the transaction. For want of necessary finances the Association would not take delivery of the entire quantity of the said yarn with the result that the balance quantity were sold by the said Warden and Co. The Chairman of the Association requested Warden and Co. to dispose of the goods in such a manner that the Association might not suffer any loss but might get a net profit of at least 4% on those goods. Warden and Co., disposed of the goods and paid certain amount by way of profit to the Association. The result was that the Chairman and the other members of the Association were prosecuted for committing the offence under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The High Court, on appeal, having convicted the Chairman under Section 5 of the said Act, an appeal was preferred to the Supreme Court.
Calcutta High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Kalindi Woollen Mills (P) Ltd. And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 20 July, 1990

16. By looking at the decision (Abdul Aziz v. State of Maharashtra) it has been found that the power conferred Under Section 3(1) of the Imports Exports (Control) Act is not restricted merely to prohibiting or restricting imports at the point of entry of goods into the territory of India but extends also to controlling the subsequent disposal of the goods imported. It is for the appropriate authority and not for the Courts to consider the Policy, which must depend on diverse considerations, to be adopted in Regard to the control of imports of goods. The import of goods can be controlled in several ways. If it is desired that goods of a particular kind should not enter the country at all, the import of those goods can be totally prohibited. In case, total prohibition is not desired, the goods could be allowed to come into the country in limited quantities. That would necessitate the empowering persons to import under licences certain fixed quantities of the goods. The quantity of goods to be imported will have to be determined on consideration of the necessity for having those goods in the country and that action would depend on the use to be made on those goods. It follows therefore, that the persons licensed to import goods up to a certain quantity should be amenable to the orders of the Licensing Authority with respect to the way in which those goods are utilised. If the Licensing authority has no such power, its control over the import cannot be effective. If may have considered it necessary to have goods imported for a particular purpose. If it cannot control their utilization for that purpose, the imported goods, after import, can be diverted to different uses, defeating thereby the very purpose in which the import was allowed and power had been conferred on the Central Government to control imports. It is, therefore, not possible to restrict the scope of the provision about the control of import to the stage of importing of the goods at the frontiers of the country. Their content is much wider and extends to every stage at which the Government feels it necessary to see that the imported goods are properly utilised for the purpose for which their import was considered necessary in the interest of the country. The provision in Clause 5 of the Imports (Control) Order (1955) empowering the licensing authority to attach a condition to the effect that the goods covered by the licence shall not be disposed of except in the manner prescribed by the licensing authority is a valid provision which comes within the powers conferred by Section 3 of the said Act on the Central Government. This Court also finds that the scope of Clause 5(4) of Imports (Control) Order 1955 has been considered by the Supreme Court by observing that sub-Clause (4) of Clause 5 provides that the licensee shall comply with all conditions imposed or deemed to be imposed under the Clause. The contravention of any condition of a licence thus amounts to the contravention of the provision of sub-clause (4) of clause 5 of the Order and consequently to the contravention of the order made under the Act. If the licensee does not comply with the conditions of the licence about the use of the goods to be imported he contravenes the order made under the Act and makes him liable to punishment.
Calcutta High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Kalindi Woollen Mills (P) Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 1 February, 1994

20. At a close look at the said decision of the Supreme Court, we are of view that the said decision has no manner of application to the instant case. The observation of the Supreme Court in the said decision was in connection with the contention that once the importation has been completed of particular goods, the Import Licence Control Authorities can have no power or jurisdiction to control their subsequent disposal and no steps can be taken against an importer for any contravention post importation of goods under the said Act. In repelling the said contention, the Supreme Court has observed that Section 3(1) of the said Act does not merely prohibit or restrict the imports at the point of entry but extends also to controlling the subsequent disposal of the goods imported. Nowhere in the said decision including in paragraph 10 thereof the Supreme Court has observed that the respondents were entitled to restrict the importation of any goods through particular ports in the country only. On the contrary, the said decision speaks about either totally prohibiting importation of certain goods or allowing partial or limited quantities thereof being imported. Thus, the restrictions as aforesaid relate to goods or class of goods only.
Calcutta High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next