Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.35 seconds)
Documents citing Berlia Chemicals And Traders And ... vs The Union Of India (Uoi), Ministry Of ... on 14 August, 1987

Arjun Ratan Gaikwad vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 20 August, 2024

16. The Apex Court, in the case of Vijaykumar Vs. Union of India and others, (1988)2 SCC 57 has observed - Whether the offence for which the detenue was jailed, was bailable or not is immaterial for the purpose of prevention detention. In view of the 15 WP-698-2024 same, in the present case, the petitioner has not been arrested in connection with any of the crimes registered against him, which found basis of his detention order would, therefore, be of no consequence.
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - R G Avachat - Full Document

Shyam Suresh Yenelli vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 9 August, 2024

19. The Apex Court, in case of Vijaykumar Vs. Union of India and Others, (1988) 2 SCC 57 has observed - Whether the offence for which detenue was jailed was bailable or not immaterial for the purpose of preventive detention. In view of the same, even the present petitioner to have not been arrested in connection with any of the crimes registered against him, which found basis of his detention order would, therefore, be of no consequence. Although, the last crime was registered in September 2023. Both the in-camera statements are dated 24 th November, 2023. The proposal for the petitioner's detention was moved on 28 th November, 2023.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - R G Avachat - Full Document

Victory Plastics Pvt. Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 16 June, 1993

3. Shri Madon, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the controversy in this petition stands concluded by decision of Division Bench of this Court reported in 1988 (14) ECR 659 (Bombay) Beria Chemicals and Traders, Bombay v. The Union of India and Others. The Division Bench has taken the view that the advantage granted by the first exemption notification cannot be withdrawn before March 31, 1981. In view of this judgment of the Division Bench, the petitioners are obviously entitled to claim benefit of the first exemption notification even though the letter of credit was opened after publication of the second notification. Shri Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the petitioners are not entitled to the refund of the amount of customs duty of Rs. 74,950.24. Shri Mehta submitted that the department will have to verify the claim apart from examining whether such refund is permissible in view of the amended provisions of Section 27 of the Act. Shri Mehta is right in his contention. The respondents will have to examine the claim of refund in the light of the amended provisions and if permissible, will have to further verify the accuracy of the claim.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1