G. S. KULKARNI, JITENDRA JAIN
Leyla Mohmoodi, through Constituted Attorney Sandip D. Kadam – Appellant
Versus
Additional Commissioner of Customs – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G. S. Kulkarni, J.
The judgment has been divided into the following parts:
| S.No. | Contents |
| A | Preface |
| B | Facts |
| C | Reply Affidavits |
| D | Submissions on behalf of the petitioners |
| E | Submissions on behalf of the respondents |
| F | Analysis and Conclusion. |
A. Preface:-
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raises an important issue as to whether the action of the respondents to sell/dispose of the gold jewellery of the ownership of the petitioners, as seized from them, without notice to the petitioners, and before an order of confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short ‘the Customs Act’) can be said to be legal and valid.
2. The contention of the petitioners is that the impugned action of the respondents of seizure of petitioners’ gold jewellery and its disposal was patently illegal being in breach of the provisions of not only the Customs Act, but the rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 300A read with Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
3. The prayers as made in the petition are
Zhinet Banu Nazir Dadany Vs. Union of India
Kalyani Packaging Industry Vs. Union of India
Union of India Vs. Shambhunath Karmakar
State of Gujarat Vs. M.M.Hazi Hasan
Dharam Dutt & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors.
State Of West Bengal And Ors vs Sujit Kumar Rana
State of Gujarat Vs. Memon Mahomed Haji Hasam.
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.