Quashed

Union of India through the Commissioner of Cutoms (General) Mumbai v. Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Mumbai and Anr.

Bombay HC15 Feb 2007WP/56/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order dated 2nd June 2006 containing unwarranted observations because the petitioner had already filed a separate Customs Appeal against the Tribunal order, rendering the High Court's impugned order unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 2nd June, 2006 quashed and set aside. Petition disposed of.

Union of India through the Commissioner of Cutoms… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.56 OF 2007

¶5

Union of India ..Petitioner Vs.

¶6

Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal & Anr. ..Respondents

¶7

Mr.A.J.Rana, Senior Advocate with Mr.P.S.Jetly for the Petitioner. Mr.D.B.Shroff, Senior Advocate with Mr.Anil Balani with Mr.S.N.Kantawala with Shilpa Balani for the Respondent No.2.

¶8

CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &

¶9

J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ.

¶10

DATE : 15TH FEBRUARY,2007

¶11

P.C.

¶12

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the parties. The Respondent No.1 is a formal party. The learned Senior

¶13

Counsel for Respondent No.2 waives service. By

¶14

consent, matter taken up for final hearing.

¶15

2.			By this	Petition,	the Peti	tioner	Union of
India		is	chall	enging	the	order	dated	2nd	June,2006
especially			the	obser	vations	i	n paragraph	No.3,4,5	and
6	of	the	said	order.		The	learned Senior	Counsel	for

¶16

Respondent No.2 has no objection in setting aside the aforesaid order dated 2nd June,2006.

¶17

:2:

¶18

Having regard to the facts and circumstances

¶19

of the	case	and	also	in	view of	the fact	th	at	the
Petitioner	Union	of	Ind	ia	has	already	filed		the
Customs	Appeal	No.35	of	20	06 agains	t the	order	of	the
Tribunal	dated	1st			December	,2005,	the		said
observations	made		in	the	impu	gned	order		are

¶20

unwarranted. In view thereof, the said order dated

¶21

2nd June,2006 stands quashed and set aside.

¶22

Rule is made absolute accordingly and the

¶23

Petition stands disposed of.

¶24

(J.P.DEVADHAR,J.)

¶25

(DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)

Union of India through the Commissioner of Cutoms (General) Mumbai v. Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Mumbai and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India through the Commissioner of Cutoms (General) Mumbai v. Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Mumbai and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Vikas Utilities Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Jagdish Chandra Gupta Vs Union of India and Anr.

Indiana Conveyors Limited Vs the Union of India and Ors.

M/S.North West Airlines Vs Union of India and Ors.

Owens Corning (India) Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Shakti Sales Agencies Vs Union of India