COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS MADRAS NATHELLA SAMPATHU CHETTY PURAN SINGH KEWAL KRISHAN KRISHAN LAL ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIA SONI NARANDAS NAGJIBHAI PUKHRAJ M S VENKITANARAYANA IYER Vs. NATHELLA SAMPATHU CHETTY:THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS MADRAS:THE STATE OF PUNJAB:THE STATE OF PUNJAB:THE STATE OF PUNJAB:THE STATE OF PUNJAB:THE STATE OF PUNJAB:D R KOHLI:THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE MADRAS
LAWS(SC)-1961-9-14
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on September 25,1961

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS,MADRAS,NATHELLA SAMPATHU CHETTY,PURAN SINGH,KEWAL KRISHAN,KRISHAN LAL,ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIA,SONI NARANDAS NAGJIBHAI,PUKHRAJ,M.S.VENKITANARAYANA IYER Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB,NATHELLA SAMPATHU CHETTY,COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS,D.R.KOHLI,COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

SATISH KUMAR BATRA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(SC)-2009-4-80] [REFERRED TO]
BAIJNATH PRASAD GUPTA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1967-1-6] [REFERRED TO]
FIRM RAMGOPAL RAMASHANKER VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-1982-10-22] [REFERRED TO]
ASSTT COLLECTOR OF C EX AND CUS , AJMER VS. LADHU LAL [LAWS(RAJ)-1978-10-31] [REFERRED]
JINDAL STAINLESS LTD.& ANR. VS. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2016-11-11] [REFERRED TO]
CELLULAR OPERATORS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA VS. TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2016-5-63] [REFERRED TO]
ALL KERALA DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION, KOTTAYAM UNIT VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(SC)-2022-7-96] [REFERRED TO]
INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA VS. SATYANARAYAN BANKATLAL MALU [LAWS(SC)-2024-4-61] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF SIKKIM VS. PALDEN BHUTIA [LAWS(SIK)-1980-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
BHARTIYA HOTEL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-1967-12-10] [REFERRED TO]
OM UDYOG VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) [LAWS(P&H)-2010-5-285] [REFERRED TO]
T V SUNDARAM IYENGAR AND SONS LTD VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1998-11-39] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHBIR SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-1972-9-18] [REFERRED TO]
SRINIVASAN VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-1977-1-2] [REFERRED TO]
JANHIT MANCH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2006-11-58] [REFERRED TO]
DOCTORS SAHKARI GRAH NIRMAN SAMITI LTD VS. AVAS AVAM VIKAS PARISHAD [LAWS(ALL)-1984-5-29] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KUMAR RAJENDRA SWAROOP VS. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX [LAWS(ALL)-1966-1-18] [REFERRED TO]
P BAPANAIAH VS. STATE [LAWS(APH)-1967-11-9] [REFERRED TO]
DAYALBAGH EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE AGRA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-2001-5-122] [REFERRED TO]
MIRA RANI HAZRA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2020-2-3] [REFERRED TO]
MIRA RANI HAZRA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2020-2-3] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH GUPTA VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2009-8-324] [REFERRED TO]
GUNASUNDARI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2003-4-232] [REFERRED TO]
M P KANNAN QUILANDY VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1965-12-32] [REFERRED TO]
TIRUPATI CYLINDERS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANR. [LAWS(DLH)-2017-9-168] [REFERRED TO]
AMAR KISORE PROSAD VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, PATNA [LAWS(CE)-2006-2-116] [REFERRED TO]
RESIDENT DEPUTY COLLECTOR PUNE VS. G N LANDGE SINCE DECD [LAWS(BOM)-1996-11-17] [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMANDAS CHAGANLAL BHATIA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1966-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
K.M. CHIKKATHAYAMMA AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2016-3-75] [REFERRED TO]
NAND LAL VS. THE ESTATE OFFICER AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-1966-8-18] [REFERRED TO]
GURDEV DUTT SHARMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-2005-8-19] [REFERRED TO]
Mohammed Haneefa VS. State of Tamilnadu [LAWS(MAD)-2005-4-93] [REFERRED TO]
TRANSLUMINA THERAPEUTICS LLP VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2023-9-169] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND VS. MOHAN SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2012-9-89] [REFERRED TO]
SYED SHARJI HUSSAIN VS. IDBI BANK LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-10-93] [REFERRED TO]
GIRNAR TRADERS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2007-8-112] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD VS. CO OPERATIVE BANK EMPLOYEES UNION [LAWS(SC)-2007-3-132] [REFERRED TO]
MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1979-1-62] [RELIED ON]
FERRO ALLOYS CORPORATION LIMITED VS. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(SC)-1993-4-12] [RELIED ON]
KARTAR SINGH KRIPA SHANKAR RAI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(SC)-1994-1-109] [REFERRED TO]
UJAGAR PRINTS II KWALITY SILK MILLS CO VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1988-11-22] [REFERRED TO]
K S PAPANNA VS. DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER GUNTAKAL [LAWS(APH)-1966-11-27] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHANDRA THAKORLAL MEHTA VS. SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1976-7-2] [REFERRED TO]
SHREE VINDHYA PAPER MILLS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2005-4-161] [REFERRED TO]
KEWAL VADHERA VS. LAKSHMI NARAIN BANSAL [LAWS(DLH)-1984-8-7] [REFERRED TO]
N K DHOLAKIA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1978-12-16] [REFERRED TO]
A P KEROSENE WHOLESALE DEALERS FEDERATION VS. COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-2003-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
G DINESH KUMAR VS. VICE CHANCELLOR JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY [LAWS(APH)-2004-11-138] [REFERRED TO]
ENGEE INDUSTRIAL SERVICES (PVT.) VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUS. [LAWS(CE)-1995-10-42] [REFERRED TO]
J K CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTOR AND SRI S V RANGA REDDY VS. UNION OF INDIA UOI [LAWS(ALL)-2006-2-272] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS C.G.O. VS. SONAM INTERNATIONAL SHOP NO. 9 [LAWS(ALL)-2010-10-327] [REFERRED TO]
SYAM RAJ. R.S VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2024-9-8] [REFERRED TO]
LATHA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1988-2-35] [FOLLOWED ON]
HYDER ENTERPRISES AND ORS. VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES (CITY) AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-1982-9-56] [REFERRED TO]
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR VS. ABDUL WAHAB [LAWS(MAD)-1963-11-44] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL CO OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION OF INDIA LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2003-3-24] [REFERRED]
PEOPLES UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2003-12-94] [REFERRED TO]
KISHORE CHANDRA PATEL VS. STATE [LAWS(ORI)-1993-7-8] [REFERRED TO]
S Syed Ali Fathima VS. Secretary to Government of India [LAWS(MAD)-2005-4-167] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. M 8 ATTESEE AGRO INDUSTRIAL TRADING CORPORATION [LAWS(SC)-1988-10-34] [REFERRED TO]
PEOPLES UNION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-1991-3-3] [REFERRED TO]
AMICHAND VALANJI VS. G B KOTAK [LAWS(BOM)-1964-10-5] [REFERRED TO]
M A RANGASWAMI VS. AMIN CHAND PAYARELAL FIRM BOMBAY [LAWS(BOM)-1978-3-22] [REFERRED TO]
NATHMALL JALAN VS. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) [LAWS(CAL)-1966-1-27] [REFERRED]
CHARANDAS MALHOTRA VS. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS [LAWS(CAL)-1966-4-15] [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR CENTRAL EXCISE ALLAHABAD VS. L KASHI NATH JEWELLERS [LAWS(ALL)-1971-12-10] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN LAL VERMA VS. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR. [LAWS(ALL)-1971-12-38] [REFERRED TO]
P.C. JOSHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2006-2-164] [REFERRED TO]
BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INVESTIGATION AND REGISTRATION MRTP COMMISSION [LAWS(DLH)-1988-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA GUPTA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2000-4-90] [REFERRED TO]
GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2023-2-33] [REFERRED TO]
GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2023-2-33] [REFERRED TO]
B.N. DEY & CO AND ORS. VS. STATE OF ASSAM & OTHERS [LAWS(GAU)-1982-9-13] [REFERRED TO]
MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1996-12-104] [REFERRED TO]
ANATHA BANDHU MANDAL VS. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2015-6-9] [REFERRED TO]
C S SUBRAMANIAN VS. KUMARASAMY [LAWS(MAD)-1994-2-20] [REFERRED TO]
SRIKANTA DATTA NARASIMHA RAJA WADIYAR VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX [LAWS(KAR)-1999-3-67] [REFERRED TO]
SUPREME COURT ADVOCATE-ON-RECORD ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2015-10-80] [REFERRED TO]
STANDERED CHARTERED BANK VS. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [LAWS(SC)-2006-2-11] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VS. M/S. CANON INDIA PVT. LTD [LAWS(SC)-2024-11-19] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYANA PANICKER VS. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER PALGHAT [LAWS(KER)-1968-2-8] [REFERRED TO]
YOGESH TRADING CO KOTACHERY VS. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER OF SALES TAX CANNANORE [LAWS(KER)-1970-2-18] [REFERRED TO]
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER VS. XAVIER [LAWS(KER)-1976-7-7] [REFERRED TO]
MANEKBEN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1975-4-20] [REFERRED]
GANGA PERSHAD VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-1976-8-2] [REFERRED]
TODDY CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY TODDY GROUP OF KHAMMAM VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2010-2-19] [REFERRED TO]
RAJKUMAR SANGAIAH PANDIYAN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2010-10-262] [REFERRED TO]
POONAM CHAND MALUK CHAND SHAH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1970-9-12] [REFERRED TO]
SHEIKH MOHAMMED SAYEED VS. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS FOR PREVENTIVE I [LAWS(CAL)-1969-6-8] [REFERRED TO]
SAROJ VS. IMARTA SAINI [LAWS(ALL)-2000-7-60] [REFERRED TO]
JAMEEL AND CO VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [LAWS(APH)-1971-8-7] [REFERRED TO]
SHAKUNTALA DEVI JAN KALYAN SAMITI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-381] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN SOCIAL ACTION FORUM VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2020-3-47] [REFERRED TO]
PANDURANG GANPATI CHAUGULE VS. VISHWASRAO PATIL MURGUD SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2020-5-2] [REFERRED TO]
MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2021-7-9] [REFERRED TO]
M. S. VENKITANARAYANA IYER VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(SC)-1962-9-32] [REFERRED TO]
BOLANI ORES LIMITED DALMIA CEMENT BHARAT LIMITED BOLANI ORES LIMITED VS. STATF OF ORISSA:THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER BALLERY MYSORE :STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(SC)-1974-9-31] [REFERRED]
LAXMI KHANDSARI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-1981-3-66] [RELIED ON]
GIAN CHAND VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(SC)-1961-11-18] [REFERRED]
GOPALDAS UDHAVDAS AHUJA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2004-7-28] [REFERRED TO]
MARDIA CHEMICALS LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2004-4-60] [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA VS. RAMAKRISHNAN [LAWS(KER)-1963-9-25] [REFERRED TO]
PUSHPA DEVI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-1983-7-42] [REFERRED TO]
GIRISH GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-1996-9-41] [REFERRED TO]
RAJKUMAR SAHU VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2019-3-98] [REFERRED TO]
RECKITT BENCKISER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2024-1-242] [REFERRED TO]
KEVENTERS KARAMCHARISINGH VS. LT GOVERNOR DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-1970-4-4] [REFERRED]
ABDUL SALAM VS. MALLAPPALIY GRAMA PANCHAYAT [LAWS(KER)-1998-8-65] [REFERRED TO]
MANGALA PROSAD VS. V J MANERIKAR [LAWS(CAL)-1964-1-21] [REFERRED TO]
N G ROY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-1967-12-9] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJ BHUSHAN BANSAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2012-12-165] [REFERRED TO]
V PAKEERA REDDY VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR [LAWS(APH)-1989-2-22] [REFERRED TO]
J SEKAR VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-1-24] [REFERRED TO]
PRANSHANKAR VS. FULSINHJI [LAWS(GJH)-1984-6-21] [REFERRED TO]
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BOMBAY VS. MAHESH VADILAL GANDHI [LAWS(BOM)-1992-11-52] [REFERRED TO]
NALGONDA DISTRICT OIL MILLERS ASSOCIATION NALGONDA VS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2002-3-57] [REFERRED TO]
MUKTA BAI VS. SATYANARAYAN GUPTA [LAWS(CHH)-2002-10-9] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA PRASAD MAITRI VS. STATE OF C G [LAWS(CHH)-2005-2-21] [REFERRED TO]
HAZI P V MOHAMMAD BARAMY SONS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1979-1-17] [REFERRED TO]
ROSLINE GEORGE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1990-12-15] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAI BAHADUR RAI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2005-5-226] [REFERRED TO]
ASSTT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS FOR EXPORTS VS. HOARE MILLER AND CO LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1986-5-15] [REFERRED TO]
HIRALAL CHHAGANLAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1967-11-8] [REFERRED TO]
SHREYA SINGHAL VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) [LAWS(SC)-2015-3-72] [REFERRED TO]
MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD. AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-1996-12-183] [REFERRED TO]
CHANAN RAM JAGAN NATH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1964-3-5] [REFERRED TO]
MEHTABSINGH AND SONS MOTORS HIRE PURCHASER P VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1964-8-5] [REFERRED TO]
BALDOO BANSHI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1966-2-4] [REFERRED TO]
A J JOY AND VS. GOVT OF T N [LAWS(MAD)-1993-6-24] [REFERRED TO]
SRINIVASAN VS. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-1972-10-26] [REFERRED TO]
BAWA GOPAL DAS BEDI AND SONS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-1981-12-4] [REFERRED TO]
NEW CENTRAL JUTE MILLS CO LIMITED VS. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE ALLAHABAD [LAWS(SC)-1970-9-56] [REFERRED TO]
KEWAL KRISHAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(SC)-1962-3-9] [RELIED ON]
RAM KIRPAL BHAGAT VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-1969-11-13] [REFERRED TO]
NAVDEEP KAUR GILL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2011-3-297] [REFERRED TO]
CHARAN LAL SAHU RAKESH SHROUTI RAJKUMAR KESWANI NASRIN BI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1989-12-35] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN ALUMINIUM CORPORATION LIMITED VS. CONTROLLER OF ALUMINIUM [LAWS(DLH)-1975-12-4] [REFERRED AT P. 337; (2)]
JOSEPH ANTONY VS. STATE [LAWS(KER)-1986-4-13] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA PILLAI GOVINDA PILLAI VS. SANKARA PILLAI GOVINDA PILLAI [LAWS(KER)-1970-12-26] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL RAHIM VS. STATE OF MYSORE [LAWS(KAR)-1971-2-15] [REFERRED TO]
K. LAKSHMINARAYANAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2018-3-1445] [REFERRED TO]
AMAL PROSAD CHAKRAVARTY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1979-6-23] [REFERRED TO]
SHAM LAL SEN COMPANY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-1971-8-25] [REFERRED]
SEORAJUDDIN AND CO VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-1971-9-17] [REFERRED TO]
KALANGI KRISHNA MURTY AND CO VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER GUNTUR [LAWS(APH)-1968-3-22] [REFERRED TO]
RAJABHAI RANMAL MORI VS. MEMBERS OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF SHRI UNA TALUKA SKVS LIMITED [LAWS(GJH)-1975-7-10] [REFERRED]
BAPALAL KHUSHALIDAS GOSALIA VS. R PRASAD COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE BARODA [LAWS(GJH)-1964-3-4] [REFERRED]
ANANTRAI MOHANLAL MEHTA VS. HARILAL KALYANJI TAJAWALA [LAWS(GJH)-1983-2-5] [REFERRED]
PRABHASHANKAR SHANKARLAL JOSHI VS. FULSINHJI KESHARISINHJI PARMAR [LAWS(GJH)-1984-6-17] [REFERRED]
MOHAMMAD TAHIR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2004-3-40] [REFERRED TO]
M/S SAN FIT VS. KISHAN LAL TUTEJA [LAWS(CHH)-2014-3-6] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHIL KUMAR SHARMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2005-7-12] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS VS. SURESH JHUNJHUNWALA [LAWS(SC)-2006-10-33] [REFERRED TO]
WESTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED VS. SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KORBA:SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KORBA [LAWS(SC)-1981-11-4] [RELIED ON]
ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS VS. CHARAN DAS MALHOTRA [LAWS(SC)-1971-2-46] [DISTINGUISHED]
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. D T C MAZDOOR CONGRESS ANB [LAWS(SC)-1990-9-63] [DISTINGUISHED]
M R F LIMITED VS. INSPECTOR KERALA GOVT [LAWS(SC)-1998-11-22] [RELIED ON]
JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY (READ.) VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2017-8-94] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH N DIXIT VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1985-7-7] [REFERRED TO]
SAWAI MADHOPUR OIL AND PULSE INDUSTRIES VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2001-8-39] [REFERRED TO]
G K AMBADY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-1968-7-19] [REFERRED TO]
R MOORTHY VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2014-9-467] [REFERRED]
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR VS. ABDUL WAHAB [LAWS(MAD)-1963-10-25] [REFERRED TO]
RELIANCE TRADING COMPANY VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2000-1-31] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH BABUBHAI PATEL VS. UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2013-11-87] [REFERRED TO]
HIRALAL SHAH VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(CAL)-1962-7-6] [REFERRED TO]
CHARANDAS MALHOTRA VS. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS [LAWS(CAL)-1966-3-34] [REFERRED]
JOSEPH BAIN DSOUZA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2005-10-99] [REFERRED TO]
KEWAL KUMAR VS. LAKSHMI NARAIN [LAWS(DLH)-1984-8-23] [REFERRED TO]
SRI NATH VS. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY JAUNPUR [LAWS(ALL)-1979-9-56] [REFERRED TO]
PRAGYASINGH CHANDRAPALSINGH THAKUR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT [LAWS(BOM)-2013-10-97] [REFERRED TO]
CONSORTIUM OF ENGINEERING COLLEGES MANAGEMENTS ASSOCIATION VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT [LAWS(APH)-2011-10-47] [REFERRED TO]
MRF MAZDOOR SANG VS. COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR [LAWS(APH)-2013-10-102] [REFERRED TO]
LAMBHA V K S S MANDALI LTD VS. DISTRICT REGISTRAR CO OP SOCIETIES RURAL AHMEDABAD [LAWS(GJH)-1972-10-12] [REFERRED]
NEELKAMAL REALTORS SUBURBAN PVT. LTD. AND ANR. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2017-12-327] [REFERRED TO]
APRAJITA KUMARI VS. JOINT DIRECTOR [LAWS(DLH)-2017-9-85] [REFERRED TO]
Y K SINGHAL VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1995-1-52] [REFERRED TO]
GAURI SHANKAR GAUR VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-1993-8-92] [RELIED ON]
STATE OF SIKKIM VS. DEWA TSHERING BHUTIA [LAWS(SIK)-1986-7-2] [REFERRED TO]
GEM PALACE JAIPUR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-1969-12-16] [REFERRED TO]
PRAVINSINH INDRASINH MAHIDA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-8-273] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB STATE TRANSMISSION VS. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY [LAWS(ET)-2012-3-9] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN VS. STATE OF J&K & ORS. [LAWS(J&K)-2005-8-31] [REFERRED]
APRAJITA KUMARI AND ORS VS. JOINT DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE AND ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-1-641] [REFERRED TO]
AMBADAS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1973-11-26] [REFERRED TO]
JAYASREE VS. UNION OF INDIA, [LAWS(KER)-2018-12-172] [REFERRED TO]
SHREEMAD JAGADGURU SHANKARACHARYA SHREE SHREE RAGHAVESHWARA BHARATI SWAMIJI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2014-12-7] [REFERRED TO]
S. DHANDAPANI VS. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, FOOD CELL, C.I.D., POLLACHI [LAWS(MAD)-1973-11-22] [REFERRED TO]
M HASAN VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1997-9-75] [REFERRED TO]
GOA URBAN CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED VS. MERCES ENGLISH HIGH SCHOOL MERCES [LAWS(BOM)-1999-7-100] [REFERRED TO]
RAJAT GUPTA VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE [LAWS(CE)-2001-4-202] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

AYYANGAR, - (1.)THE Judgment of the court was delivered by
(2.)THE Sea Customs Act, 1878 (Act 8 of 1378) (referred to hereinafter as the 'Act), was amended by s. 14 of Act 21 of 1955 by the introduction of s. 178A reading: '178A. (1) Where any goods to which this section applies are seized under this Act in the reasonable belief that they are smuggled goods, the burden of proving that they are not smuggled goods shall be on the person from whose possession the goods were seized. (2) This section shall apply to gold, gold manufactures, diamonds and other precious stones, cigarettes and cosmetics and any other goods which the central government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf. (3) Every notification issued under Sub- section (2) shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is issued.'
It is the constitutional validity of this section that is the common point which arises in these several cases which have been heard together. We have heard on the merits only Civil Appeals 408 to 410 of 1960 and the other cases were posted before us in order that Counsel appearing for the parties in them,. might have an opportunity to be heard upon the common question mentioned earlier. We shall, therefore, refer only to the fact,% of Civil Appeals 408 to 410 of 1960 in dealing with these petitions. Civil Appeals 480 to 410:

These appeals come before us on a certificate granted by the High court of Madras under Arts.132(1) and 133(1)(c) of the Constitution and are directed against the judgment and order of the High court in two Writ Petitions filed before it by Nathella Sampathu Chetty-the sole proprietor of a business in gold and silver, bullion, jewellery etc. carried on in the name of Nathella Sampathu Chetty and Sons (referred to hereafter as the respondent).

The facts giving rise to these appeals are briefly as follows : On the morning of 26/06/1956, one Nandgopal-an employee of the respondent-alighted at the central station in Madras from the Bombay Express. Nandgopal was intercepted and questioned by a Head Constable of the State Police Service attached to the Prohibition Intelligence Department. Nandgopal admitted that he was in possession of gold which he was bringing for his firm-the respondent-from Bombay. The Head Constable immediately contacted the officers of the Preventive Section of the Customs Department who were on duty at the central station who interrogated Nandgopal and Eeized from him four blocks of gold weighing in all about 1,000.00 tolas. Enquiries were made to verify the story narrated by Nandgopal as to the source fromhich he obtained the gold and thereafter the Collector of Customs being prima facie of the view that the gold seized had been smuggled, issued notice to the respondent to show cause why the said gold should not be confiscated. The respondent offered his explanation but the Collector held that the respondent had not discharged the onus of proving that the gold was not smug led-an onus Customs Act and directed the confiscation of the gold. The respondent thereupon filed a petition (Writ Petition 384 of 1957) under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the High court of Madras for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ for quashing the order of the Collector of Customs on various grounds to which we shall advert later, including the constitutional validity of a. 178A.

While this writ petition was pending, the respondent filed another petition (,Writ Petition 660 of 1958) for a writ of mandamus directing the Collector to return the gold seized and confiscated by him.

(3.)THE two writ petitions were heard together and by an order dated 11/09/1958, the learned Judges of the High court held, allowing Writ Petition 384 of 1957, that s. 178A of the Sea Customs Act was void under Art. 13 of the Constitution. THEy further held that even if s. 178A were valid, the condition precedent for invoking the rule as to the burden of proof prescribed by the section had not been complied with, in that the customs officer who effected the seizure which preceded the adjudication did not entertain 'a reasonable belief that the gold was smuggled', with the result that the order of confiscation was invalid. Besides, the learned Judges were also of the view that s. 178A of the Sea Customs Act could not be invoked in adjudicating a contravention of a notification under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act which imposed restrictions on the import of gold. Though on these conclusions the order of the Collector confiscating the gold was set aside, the learned Judges held that the respondent was not entitled to an order for the return of the gold, but only to a direction to the Collector to hear and determine the question about the gold seized being smuggled gold without reference to the rule as to onus of proof enacted by s. 178A. THE appellant, the Collector of Customs, Madras, obtained leave from the High court under Arts. 132 and 133 of the Constitution, to appeal to this court against the orders in writ petition No. 384 of 1957 and No. 660 of 1958 (Civil Appeals 408 and 409) and a similar order was passed in an application for a certificate by the respondent who felt aggrieved by the refusal of the court in Writ petition No. 660 of 1958 to direct an immediate return of the gold seized (Civil Appeal 410). THE three appeals have been consolidated as they arise out of the same transaction.
We shall first take up for consideration Civil Appeals 408 and 409 of 1960 filed by the Collector of Customs, because unless those appeals fail there would be no need to decide the relief to which the respondent would be entitled in Civil Appeal 410 of 1960. In order to appreciate the contentions, raised, it would be necessary to set out the statutory provisions which form the background of the impugned provision s. 178A of the Sea Customs Act. The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (Act' 7 of 1947), was brought into force on 25/03/1947, by a notification issued by the central government under s. 1(3) of that Act. The preamble to the Act recites: 'It is expedient in the economic and financial interests of India to provide for the regulation of...... the import and export of currency and bullion.' Section 8 of this Act refers to the import of gold the commodity with which these appeals are concerned. It enacts: '8(1). The central government may, by notification in the official Gazette, order that subject to such exemptions, if any, as may be contained in the notification, no person shall except with the general or special permission of the Reserve Bank and on payment of the fee, if any, prescribed bring or send into India any gold or silver or any currency notes or bank notes or coin whether Indian or foreign, Explanation.-The bringing or sending into any port or place in India of any such article as aforesaid intended to be taken out of India without being removed from the ship of conveyance in which it is being carried shall nonetheless be deemed to be a bringing, or as the case may be sending, into India of that article for the purposes of this section.' Gold is defined in s. 2(f) of this Act thus: ' 'gold' includes gold in the form of Coin, whether legal tender or not, or in the form of bullion or ingot, whether refined or 'not and Jewellery or articles made wholly or. mainly of gold.' These provisions have to be read in conjunction with the provisions of the Sea Customs Act which form, as it were, integrated provisions in relation to the import and export of, among other commodities, gold, and s. 23A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act which was introduced by an amendment of 1952 effects this co-ordination. This section reads: '23A. Without prejudice to the provisions of section 23 or to any other provision contained in this Act the restrictions imposed by subS. (1) and (2) of section 8, subsection (1) of section 12 and clause (a) of sub-sec- tion (1) of section 13 shall be deemed to have been imposed under section 19 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, and all the provisions of that Act shall have effect. accordingly, except that section 183 thereof shall have effect as if for the word shall' therein the word 'may' were substituted. ' Turning now to the Sea Customs Act. s. 167(8) enacts- '167. The offenses mentioned in the first column of the following schedule shall be punishable to the extent mentioned in the third column of the same with reference to such offenses respectively: JUDGEMENT_316_AIR(SC)_1962Html1.htm Section 19 referred to here reads '19. The central government may from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, prohibit or restrict the bringing or taking by sea or by land goods of any specified description into or out of India across any customs frontier as defined by the central government.'

The other provisions which have a bearing upon the points arising for discussion with reference to the validity of the impugned s. 178A of the Sea Customs Act are : 's. 178. Any thing liable to confiscation under this Act may be seized in any place, in India either upon land or water, or within the Indian Customs waters, by any officer of Customs or other person duly employed for the prevention of smuggling.' 'Is. 181. When anything is seized, or any person is arrested, under this Act, the officer or other person making such seizure or arrest shall, on demand of the person in charge of the thing so seized, or of the person so arrested, give him a statement in writing of the reason for such seizure or arrest.' 's. 182. In every case, except the cases mentioned in section 167, Nos. 26, 72 and 74 to 76, both inclusive, in which, under this Act, anything is liable to confiscation or to increased rates of duty; or any person is liable to penalty, such confiscation, increased rate of duty or penalty may be adjudged (a) without limit, by a Deputy Commissioner or Deputy Collector of Customs, or a Customscollector; (b) up to confiscation of goods not exceeding two hundred and fifty rupees in value and imposition of penalty or increased duty, not exceeding one hundred rupees, by an Assistant Commissioner or Assistant Collector of Customs; (c) up to confiscation of goods not exceeding fifty rupees in value, and imposition of penalty or increased duty not exceeding ten rupees, by such, other subordinate officers of customs as the Chief Customs-authority may, from time to time, empower in that half in virtue of their office: Provided that the Chief Customs authority may, in the case of any officer performing the duties of a Customs-collector, limit his powers to those indicated in clause (b) or in clause (c) of this section, and may confer on any officer, by name or in virtue of his office, the powers indicated in clauses (a), (b) or (c) of this section.' '183. Whenever confiscation is authorized by this Act, the officer adjudging it shall give the owner of the goods an option to pay in lieu of confiscation such fine as the officer thinks fit.'



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.