Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 70 (2.40 seconds)
Documents citing International Airports Authority Of ... vs M/S Grand Slam International & Om Etc. ... on 21 February, 1995

Vidyt Metallics Ltd. And Anr. vs Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of Mumbai ... on 29 March, 2006

It has been pointed out that the guide-lines provides that detention certificate must be for bonafide ITC formalities in respect of import of goods. This requirement petitioners have failed to establish. It has been also pointed out that guide-lines apply to import consignment and not to export consignment and thus the respondents are entitled to reject the claim of the petitioners and the same is accordingly validly done. I am of the opinion that in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of International Airport Authority (supra) the respondents are not bound to accept the detention certificate issued by the Customs Authorities and are entitled to consider the case on its own merits. In the present case the case of the petitioners has been considered by them on the ground whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefits of the policy issued by the government and admittedly the petitioners case do not fall under the said guide-lines issued by the government and the petitioners case is also considered independent of the said guide-lines as is evidenced from the three orders issued by respondent nos. 1 and 2 and thus it is not possible to hold that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 have failed to exercise their jurisdiction under section 53 of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963. In that light of the matter, it is not possible to grant relief to the petitioner that the petitioners case should be considered again under section 53 of the Major Port Trust Act. The reasons given by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 for rejecting the case of the petitioners independent of guide-lines that the petitioners case do not fall in special cases because of the conduct on the part of the petitioners which is narrated in the said orders including the non-exporting the goods from 1.7.1997 to 24.8.1997 though the Customs authorities had already passed a provisional export order of the said goods as well as case of the petitioner being of a over valuation of the export consignment though the said order has been set aside on the ground of lack of jurisdiction do not form a case of a special case so as to grant remission and in my opinion the said reasoning cannot be faulted with.
Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Shipping Corpn. Of India vs Monica India And Ors. on 18 March, 2015

56. Similarly, in Sonia Overseas (P) Ltd. vs. Asst.Commr.,Customs (supra) a Division Bench of this High Court relying upon Union of India & Ors. vs. Sanjeev Woolen Mills (supra), International Airports Authority of India & Ors vs. Grand Slam International & Ors. (supra) and Om Petro Chemicals vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) held that the burden is on the petitioner to produce sufficient material to suggest malafides of the authorities concerned. It is a heavy burden which can be discharged ordinarily by initiating civil proceedings. Unless malafides are established, liability on the customs cannot be established.
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - J Nath - Full Document

M/S J. K. Tyres & Industries Ltd vs Airport Authority Of India on 28 February, 2013

57. The provisions of the Customs Act or the Airport Authority of India Act and the rules framed there under do not absolve the authori­ ty viz. the defendant no. 1 absolutely from any liability. Section 48 of the of the Customs Act 1962 as relied upon by the defendant no. 1 stipulates certain safeguards which have not been complied with by the defendant no. 1 in letter and spirit by the defendant no. 1, as notice to the plaintiff is conspicuous by absence. The law pronounced in The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Another vs. The Delhi Develop­ ment Authority and Others AIR 1991 Delhi 298; State of Bombay (now Gujarat) Vs. Memon Mohomed Haji Hasam' AIR 1967 SC CS No. 103/2009 J. K. Tyre & Inds. Ltd. vs. Airport Authority of India & Anr. Page 28 of 39 29 1885; International Airport Authority Vs. Grand Slam Interna­ tional, AIR 1995 SCW 1802: (1995)3 SCC 151; Trustees Port of Madras Vs. M/s K.P. V. Sheikh Mohd Rowther & Co. Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1995 SC 1922 clearly bring out the situation as to the legal lia­ bility of the defendant no. 1, who has stepped into the shoes of a bailee in view of the statutory provisions under the Contract Act.
Delhi District Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Union Of India And Anr. vs M/S. Navshakti Industries P.Ltd. on 28 March, 2012

In the decision reported as (1995) 3 SCC 151 International Airports Authority of India & Ors. vs. Grand Slam International & Ors., Justice Venkatachala in his concurring judgment after considering the first decision on RFA(OS) No.6-7/2006 Page 11 of 14 the subject i.e. (1976) 3 SCC 167 Trustees of the Port of Madras vs. Amirchand Pyarelal, followed in (1977) 2 SCC 649 Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay vs. Indian Goods Supplying Co. and (1987) 1 SCC 648 Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay vs. Jai Hind Oil Mills Co., in para 66 of the judgment, concluded as under:-
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - P Rani - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next