K. SUBBA RAO, SYED JAFAR IMAM, A. K. SARKAR, B. P. SINHA, J. C. SHAH
Universal Imports Agency: Victory Traders – Appellant
Versus
Chief Controller Of Imports And Exports – Respondent
Judgment
SUBBA RAO J. : These four petitions are filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution for quashing the orders of the Assistant Controller of Imports and Exports, the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Pondicherry, the Board of Revenue, and the Government of India, and for an appropriate direction requiring the respondents to refund the amount realised from the petitioners.
2. Messrs. Universal Imports Agency and the proprietor of the agency are the petitioners in the first three petitioners and Messrs. Victory Traders and the petitioners in the last one. The Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Pondicherry, the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Pondi-cherry, the Central Board of Revenue, and the Government of India are the respondents in all the petitions.
3. Messrs. French India Importing Corporation and Messrs. B. S. & Co. intervened in the Writ Petitions.
4. Pondicherry was a French Possession in India. On October 21, 1954 the Government of India and the Government of France entered into an agreement (hereinafter called the Indo-French Agreement), whereunder there was a de facto transfer of the administration of the French Settlements to the Government of India (
State of Travabcire Cochain and others v. Bombay Company Ltd., Alleppey
State of Travancore-Cochin and others v. Shanmugha Vilas Cashewnut Factory Quilon
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.