BROJENDRA KUMAR SAHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(CAL)-1960-3-6
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on March 17,1960

BROJENDRA KUMAR SAHA Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RUSSEL V. QUEEN [REFERRED TO]
INSTITUTE OF PATENT AGENTS V. LOCKWOOD [REFERRED TO]
WICKS V. D.P. P. [REFERRED TO]
WILLINGDALE V. NORRIS [REFERRED TO]
MINISTER OF HEALTH V. REX EXPARTE YAFFE [REFERRED TO]
EXPARTE LINEN INDUSTRY RESEARCH ASSOCIATION [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH MANBODHAN LAL SRIVASTAVA VS. MANBODHAN LAL SRIVAITAVA:STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
MODI FOOD PRODUCTS LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX [REFERRED TO]
MUNNA LAL TEWARY VS. HAROLD R SCOTT [REFERRED TO]
D A KOREGAONKAR VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. F GIAN CHAND KASTURI LAL [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

KANTILAL AMBALAL SHAH VS. I G PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-1971-7-17] [REFEERD]
EAST ANGLIA PLASTICS INDIA LTD VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(CAL)-1980-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
DEBESH CHANDRA DAS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-1968-8-5] [REFERRED TO]
MIDNAPORE PEOPLE S C0 OPERATIVE LTD VS. JITENDRA NATH DAS [LAWS(CAL)-2007-9-73] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRANATH PANDA VS. THE STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-1965-8-8] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHANSU SEKHAR MISRA VS. STATE AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-1975-12-31] [REFERRED TO]
SUKHALAL MUNDA VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2017-3-55] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS is an appeal from the judgment and decree of Mr. Justice G. K. Mitter, dismissing the plaintiff's suit against the Union of India for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,415-10 as refund of salt duty paid by the plaintiff to the Government before the 1st April, 1947. The learned trial Judge dismissed the suit on a preliminary ground on which alone the only issue in the suit was framed in the following terms:-
"are the Notifications being Nos. 1/customs/47, l/salt/47 and 2/salt/47 dated the 28th February, 1947 and published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) on the 1st March, 1947, binding on the defendant?"

(2.)FOLLOWING a decision of Kapur, J. in Union of India v. F. Gianchand (1) in A. I. R. 1954 Punjab 159, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that these Notifications were not made under any of the sections of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and were, therefore, not binding on the Government itself which issued that Notification.
(3.)THERE were other pleas taken in the written statement of the Union of India but no issue was raised before' the trial Judge in respect of such issues by the Union of India. The learned Counsel Mr. B. K. Ghosh appearing for the Union of India before us in this Appeal abandoned formally all the pleas taken by the Union of India in its written statement and relied only on this issue on which the learned Judge found in his favour.
;


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