Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (4.83 seconds)Pukhraj vs D. R. Kohli on 15 March, 1962
The same view was expressed by this Court in Pukhraj v. D.R. Kohli (1962 Suppl. 3 SCR 866) where while dealing with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1878, this Court held that Section 178 of the said Act imposed the onus of proof that the gold was not smuggled, on the party if it was seized under the Act. The question whether it was under the reasonable belief or not, was a justiciable one. The facts of this case certainly warrant the formation of belief. In any case, once it is held that there was material relevant and germane, the sufficiency of the material is not open to judicial review.
State Of Gujarat vs Mohanlal Jitamaljiporwal & Anr on 26 March, 1987
16. The reasonable belief as to smuggled goods, as enjoined in the Act, had been explained by this Court in State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and Anr. (1987 2 SCC 364). There this Court observed whether or not the officer concerned had seized the article under the "reasonable belief" that the goods were smuggled goods, is not a question on which the Court can sit on appeal. The circumstances under which the officer concerned entertains reasonable belief, have to be judged from his experienced eye who is well equipped to interpret the suspicious circumstances and to form a reasonable belief.
M. A. Rasheed And Ors vs The State Of Kerala on 18 September, 1974
See also M.A. Rasheed and Ors. v. State of Kerala (AIR 1974 SC 2249) and The Barium Chemicals Ltd. and Anr. v. Tlie Company Law Board and Ors. (1966 Suppl. SCR 311). It must be reiterated that the conclusions arrived at by the fact finding bodies, the Tribunal or the statutory authorities, on the facts, found that cumulative effect or preponderance of evidence cannot be interfered with where the fact finding body or authority has acted reasonably upon the view which can be taken by any reasonable man, Courts will be reluctant to interfere in such a situation. Where, however, the conclusions of the fact finding authority are based on no evidence then the question of law arises and that may be looked into by the Courts but in the instant case the facts are entirely different.
The Barium Chemicals Ltd. And Anr vs The Company Law Board And Others on 4 May, 1966
See also M.A. Rasheed and Ors. v. State of Kerala (AIR 1974 SC 2249) and The Barium Chemicals Ltd. and Anr. v. Tlie Company Law Board and Ors. (1966 Suppl. SCR 311). It must be reiterated that the conclusions arrived at by the fact finding bodies, the Tribunal or the statutory authorities, on the facts, found that cumulative effect or preponderance of evidence cannot be interfered with where the fact finding body or authority has acted reasonably upon the view which can be taken by any reasonable man, Courts will be reluctant to interfere in such a situation. Where, however, the conclusions of the fact finding authority are based on no evidence then the question of law arises and that may be looked into by the Courts but in the instant case the facts are entirely different.
Messrs Mehta Parikh & Co vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay on 10 May, 1956
See the principles enunciated by this Court in M/s. Mehta Parikh & Co. v. C.7.T., Bombay (1956 SCR 626).
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973
Section 13 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
The Collector Of Customs, Madras vs Nathella Sampathu Chetty And ... on 25 September, 1961
In this connection strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Customs v. Nathella Sampathu Chetty and Anr. reported in AIR 1962 S.C. 316. Other decisions were also brought to our notice.