Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 38 (5.02 seconds)
Documents citing State Of West Bengal vs Sadan K. Bormal & Anr on 29 April, 2004

Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Sunil Chandra Mazumdar And Anr. on 18 March, 2005

31. This objection of Shri Banerjee cannot be a very sustainable ground as on the first occasion there cannot be any estoppel agajnst the law and as seen hereinabove by virtue of the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of W.B. v. Sadan K. Bormal (supra) which took into account the West Bengal Amendment of the said Act which was not considered earlier, this question does not deserve any consideration and that apart a wrong whether perpetuated knowingly or unknowingly continues and it can be rectified at any point of time by the Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction and the question of limitation does not arise.
Calcutta High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Asit Baran Banerjee And Anr. on 18 May, 2007

(31) This objection of Shri Banerjee cannot be a very sustainable ground as on the first occasion there cannot be any estoppel against the law and as seen hereinabove by virtue of the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of W.B. v. Sadan Kr. Bormal (supra) which took into account the West Bengal Amendment of the said Act which was not considered earlier, this question does not deserve any consideration and that apart a wrong whether perpetuated knowingly or unknowingly continues and it can be rectified at any point of time by the Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction and the question of limitation does not arise.
Calcutta High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - A K Roy - Full Document

Rajkumar Awasthi vs State Of Maharashtra And 3 Ors on 15 November, 2019

30. Mr.Kumbhakoni's reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on ambit and scope of a legal fiction is apposite. The legal fiction is created for a limited purpose. The same need not be carried beyond its limited effect. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its decision in the case of State of W.B. vs. Sadan K. Bormal and Anr.3, has clarified this aspect in the following paragraphs :-
Bombay High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - S C Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Sadanand Shankar Mane And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 15 November, 2019

30. Mr.Kumbhakoni's reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on ambit and scope of a legal fiction is apposite. The legal fiction is created for a limited purpose. The same need not be carried beyond its limited effect. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its decision in the case of State of W.B. vs. Sadan K. Bormal and Anr.3, has clarified this aspect in the following paragraphs :-
Bombay High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - S C Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Rajesh Narayan Tiwari And 10 Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And 10 Ors on 15 November, 2019

30. Mr.Kumbhakoni's reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on ambit and scope of a legal fiction is apposite. The legal fiction is created for a limited purpose. The same need not be carried beyond its limited effect. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its decision in the case of State of W.B. vs. Sadan K. Bormal and Anr.3, has clarified this aspect in the following paragraphs :-
Bombay High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - S C Dharmadhikari - Full Document

M/S Polytech Trade Foundation vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 August, 2021

39.4 CFSs and ICDs are not creatures of the Customs Act, as the petitioners would seek to contend. They are, essentially, in the nature of godown facilities - whether privately owned or managed by governmental agencies such as the Central Warehousing Corporation or the Container Corporation of India (which, as on date, manages all ICDs in the country) - which owe their entitlement to operate as CFSs and ICDs (for the purpose of loading and unloading of export, and imported, goods) to the notifications issued under Section 7 or Section 8 of the Customs Act. That, by itself, cannot render the collection of charges by CFSs or ICDs from their customers, penal or otherwise, subject to control by the CBIC. The CBIC, therefore, has wisely not chosen to issue any mandatory directive, on its own accord, to CFSs or ICDs, not to charge penal charges from importers or exporters 31Refer Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, (2020) 8 SCC 129; State of W.B. v. Sadan K. Bormal, (2004) 6 SCC 59; Umesh Goel v. Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Group Housing Society, (2016) 11 SCC 313 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:10.08.2021 W.P.(C) 3029/2020 & other connected matters Page 105 of 145 19:31:19 against storage of containers in their premises beyond the "free period".
Delhi High Court Cites 133 - Cited by 2 - C H Shankar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next