Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.27 seconds)
Hasmukharai Chatrabhuj Shah And Ors. vs Collector Of Customs on 8 January, 1986 cites

Shaik Kasim vs The Superintendent Of Post Offices, ... on 25 November, 1964

23. This Bench of the Tribunal (West Regional Bench) is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Bombay. The judgments of the High Court of Bombay in the absence of judgment of the Supreme Court to the contrary are binding on this Bench. The question regarding binding effect of the finding of Criminal Court in an adjudication proceeding came up before the Bombay High Court more than once and in the latest judgment of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 1004 of 1981 decided on February 12, 1985. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court considered the submissions similar to the submissions made by Shri Mehta and the other appellants. After referring to the judgment of the Madras High Court in S'haik Kasim v. Supdt. Post Office A.I.R. 1965 Madras 502 rejected the contention of Shri Parkar, the Advocate who appeared for the petitioner in the said Writ Petition. "The contention urged was that since the petitioner had been acquitted on merits by the Trial Court and the said acquittal had been 'confirmed by the High Court, the Customs Department cannot reach contrary findings in adjudication proceedings as it would lead to anamolous situation. This argument must be rejected in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Miscellaneous Petition No. 85/78 (Chandurkar & Mehta J.J) delivered on 27th/28th November and 1st December, 1981 which fairly and squarely answers the argument raised by Shri Parkar before us and we prefer to follow the Division Bench Judgment of this Court". Thereafter, their Lordship referred to the judgment of Division Bench in Misc. Petition No. 85/78 and observed 'a direct question fell for consideration in connection with the ambit and powers of the Customs Department in initiating adjudication proceedings under Section 111 and 112 of the Customs Act and consequential order of confiscation under Section 121 of the Customs Act and also a penalty under Section 135 of the Customs Act, The facts of this case show that the petitioner was also tried in Criminal Court for offences punishable under Section. 135 of the Customs Act and -ultimately, he was acquitted. The argument that was advanced before the Division Bench was as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 41 - Full Document
1   2 Next