ALTAMAS KABIR
DONALD AND MACARTHY (P) LTD. – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
( 1 ) THE writ petitioner Company claims to be incorporated under the relevant laws of Singapore and carries on business of import and export of various materials from Singapore. According to the petitioner Company, it authorised one Shri Om Prakash Chowdhury, Advocate, as its lawful Attorney to represent it before the Customs authorities, Courts in India and/or any other Government authority, or body, relating to and/or in connection with any consignment and to appoint such legal practitioners as he thought fit and t proper for the above purposes and also to do all such deeds, acts and things as may be required for the purpose of reshipment of the consignment in question. The power of Attorney granted by the petitioner Company in favour of Shri Chowdhury is said to have been counter-signed by the Indian High Commissioner at Singapore.
( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner Company, in terms of the contract entered into by and between the Company and M/s. M. K. Enterprises, the Respondent No. 10 in the present writ proceedings, it raised six invoices and shipped consignments of 6 x 20 ft. containers of Electrolytic Copper Wire Rods to be off loaded at the port of Cal
REFERRED TO : Akbar Badruddin Jiwani v. Collector of Customs
Surabhi Leathers Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs
Trustees of Port of Madras v. Nagavedu Lungi and Company
Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Jai Hind Oil Mills Co. and Ors.
Trustees of the Port of Madras v. Aminchand Pyarelal and Ors.
Padam Kumar Agarwalla v. The Additional Collector of Customs, Calcutta and Ors.
Ashoke Arya v. M.V.Kapitan Mitros
The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Indian Goods Supplying Co.
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.