Allowed

M/S.Naraindas Dayaram v. Union of India and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Jul 2009WP/1568/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This oral judgment addresses a petition regarding the rejection of an application under the K.V.S.S. Scheme. The Court, relying on a previous order in a related matter involving another noticee, quashed the impugned communication restoring the matter to the Commissioner of Customs for a fresh decision within five months to ensure uniformity.

What did the court decide?

The communication dated 11th February, 1999, rejecting the application is quashed and set aside. The matter is restored to the file of Respondent No. 2 to decide afresh within five months.

M/S.Naraindas Dayaram Vs Union of India… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

Mgn

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1568 OF 1999

¶4

M/sNaraindas Dayaram ) A Proprietory Firm, carrying on ) business through its Proprietor ) Mr. Raju N. Amarnani and having ) its office at 50-A/B, Govt. Industrial ) Estate, Charkop, Kandivali (West) ) Mumbai-400 067 )..PETITIONER

¶5

Vs.

¶6

1.The Union of India ) 2.Commissioner of Customs, ) Preventive, having his office ) at New Customs House, Ballard ) Estate, Mumbai-400 001 )..RESPONDENTS

¶7

Mr. D.B. Shroff, Senior Counsel with Mr. R.G. Sheth i/b. R.G. Sheth & Co., for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. R.V. Desai, Senior Advocate with Mrs. S.V. Bharucha, for the Respondents.

¶9

CORAM : FERDINO I. REBELLO & D.G.KARNIK, JJ.

¶10

DATED : 21ST JULY, 2009

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER FERDINO I. REBELLO, J.).

¶12

The petitioner has approached this Court in respect of the communication dated 11^th February, 1999 whereby his application under the K.V.S.S. Scheme has been rejected. In Arviva Industries (India) Ltd. vs. The Union of India, one of the noticees had come to this Court by way of Writ Petition No.1074 of 1999 which petition we have disposed of by order dated 23^rd April, 2009. We have remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Customs to consider the declaration filed by Arviva Industries (India) Ltd., and to pass appropriate orders according to law expeditiously.

¶13

It is the submission on behalf of the petitioner by the learned Counsel that

¶14

the petitioner herein is only a co-noticee and if the application by the noticee-Arviva Industries (India) Ltd., is accepted the consequences must follow that the application by the petitioner in this petition will also have to be accepted. We do not propose to go into the merits of the matter. However, considering the order passed in Writ Petition No.1074 of 19999 the communication of 11^th February, 1999 is quashed and set aside and the matter is restored to file of Respondent No.2 for deciding the matter afresh after deciding the application of Arviva Industries (India) Ltd., in terms of the direction issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.1074 of 1999.

¶15

Considering that some time has passed since disposal of Writ Petition No. 1074 of 1999 the respondents to dispose of the present application as also the earlier application at any rate not later than five months from today. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶16

(D.G. KARNIK, J.)

¶17

(F.I. REBELLO, J.)

M/S.Naraindas Dayaram v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Naraindas Dayaram v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (Vat) 3, Mumbai Vs Maharashtra Metal Powders Ltd., Nagpur

Huundai Motors India Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra, Mumbai

thecommissione of central excise-thane-i Vs m/s bidhata industries Pvt. Ltd.

the commissioner of cental excise-thane-1 Vs m/s vinayak dyeing works

Ram Kishore Agarwal Vs the Commissioner of Customs