DIPANKAR DATTA, ARAVIND KUMAR
Rikhab Chand Jain – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background facts of the case (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. high court's reasoning on jurisdiction and merits (Para 4 , 6 , 11 , 16) |
| 3. arguments presented by counsel (Para 5 , 14) |
| 4. statutory remedies and writ jurisdiction principles (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 12 , 15) |
| 5. dismissing the appeal (Para 17) |
JUDGMENT :
1. This civil appeal, by special leave granted on 17th September, 2012, impugns the judgment and order dated 14th March, 20111[impugned order] of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur2[High Court], whereby the appellant’s writ petition3[D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6203 of 2009] came to be dismissed on the ground of omission of the appellant to pursue the alternative remedy of appeal provided by the CUSTOMS ACT , 19624[1962 Act] as well as on merits.
2. The facts leading to presentation of the writ petition before the High Court are not in dispute. On 27th September, 1992, alleged smuggled silver weighing 252.177 kgs came to be seized. By an order dated 7th May, 1996, the respondent no. 35[Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise] ordered confiscation of the seized silver and levied penalty of Rs.50,000/- on the appellant. The said order was carried in
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Md. Nooh
Titaghur Paper Mills v. State of Orissa
Godrej Sarah Lee v. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority
Thansingh Nathmal v. A. Mazid, Superintendent of Taxes
A.V. Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.