Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.30 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 129A in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 129 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Bar Councll Of Maharashtra vs M. V. Dabholkar Etc. Etc on 13 August, 1975
41. In para 27 of the same judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the meaning of the words "a person aggrieved" may vary according to the context of the statute. Taking note of the normal practice, the Supreme Court observed that the term should be given a more liberal approach in the background of the statutes which do not deal with property rights but deal with professional conduct and morality. In the present appeals, we are concerned with the correctness of the importation and not any professional conduct or morality. What is in issue is whether the HPF have got a right of appeal. The judgment of the SC in Dabholkor (supra), therefore, does not help HPF.
The Central Excise Act, 1944
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
D. Sengupta vs Collector Of Customs And Ors. on 22 December, 1986
11. The learned Advocate further argued that Section 129-A of the Act does not confer a right of appeal on anybody but only on a person who by the direct act of the Collector is aggrieved. He submitted that such person should have had something done or determined against him by the Collector. Shri Kantawala argued that HPF are not such persons and they are not adversely affected by the order of the Collector. They were not deprived of anything by this order which was not communicated to them. The Customs did not proceed against them and, therefore, they have no grievance or a legal right to file the appeal. The learned Advocate referred to a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of D. Sengupta v. Collector of Customs [1987 (31) E.L.T. 30] and submitted that when an order is made affecting a party or prejudicated him, the order must be communicated to that party. The learned Advocate submitted that this Statutory Tribunal has no jurisdiction under the law to traverse beyond the confines of law.
The Industries (Development And Regulation) Act, 1951
Atlas Exporters And Another vs K.V. Irniraya, Accie. on 12 October, 1988
28. There is no definition of the term "aggrieved person" in the Customs Act. Therefore, we have to rely on the judicial interpretations of the word by various Courts in India and abroad. Reference was made during the course of arguments to the judgments of some English Courts which were referred to in 1989 (40) E.L.T. 3 (Bombay) in the case of Atlas Exporters and Anr. v. K.V. Irniraya, ACCIE. We also bear in mind the proceedings before us are appeal proceedings and not original proceedings.