Disposed

Prakash Overseas Thr. Sole Working Partner Sanjay Anup Jain v. Union of India Thr. the Joint Secretary Dept. of Revenue Ministry of Finance and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Jul 2022WP/8701/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The writ petition was disposed of on merits. The Court held that granting the reliefs was too premature but directed the respondents to issue a show-cause notice to the petitioner within four weeks, warning against further extensions.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to issue a show-cause notice to the petitioner within four weeks.

Prakash Overseas Thr. Sole Working Partner Sanjay… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

908-WP-8701-2022.doc

¶2

1 / 2

¶3

PURTI PRASAD PARAB

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

Digitally signed by PURTI PRASAD PARAB Date: 2022.07.2614:27:40 +0530 WRIT PETITION NO. 8701 OF 2022

¶6

Prakash Overseas ….Petitioner

¶7

V/s. Union of India and Ors. …Respondents

¶8

¶9

Mr. Manoj Harit a/w Mr. Mohammed Asim i/b Mr. Manoj Harit & Co. for Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. J.B. Mishra a/w Ms. Sangeeta Yadv for Respondents.

¶11

¶12

CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & A.S. DOCTOR, JJ. DATED : 22^nd JULY, 2022

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

Mr. Mishra states that affidavit in reply is ready. For

¶15

completion of record, Registry to take the same on record.

¶16

One of the prayer in the petition, i.e., prayer clause (b) reads as

¶17

under:-

¶18

“(b) this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of prohibition or a writ in the nature of prohibition or any other appropriate writ or order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India restraining the Respondents themselves, their officers, subordinates, servants and agents from proceeding with the investigation in connection with import and export of chick-peas by the Petitioner against Advance Authorisation and/or forcing the Petitioner to pay amounts towards customs duty without following the due process of law.”

¶19

Mr. Mishra states that respondents, in every case follow the due

¶20

process of law.

¶21

Purti Parab

¶22

908-WP-8701-2022.doc

¶23

2 / 2

¶24

We are not inclined to consider any of the reliefs otherwise sought because it is too premature for the court to consider the same.

¶25

Mr. Harit states that even the show-cause-notice has not been issued for a long time despite the first summons having been issued on 31.01.2020.

¶26

The petition is hereby disposed with direction to respondents that the concerned officer / authority shall issue a show-cause-notice to petitioner within four weeks from today. Respondents are also cautioned that no further extension shall be granted for issuance of the show-causenotice.

¶27

We make it clear that we have not made any observations on the merits of the matter.

¶28

(A.S. DOCTOR, J.)

¶29

( K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

¶30

Purti Parab

Prakash Overseas Thr. Sole Working Partner Sanjay Anup Jain v. Union of India Thr. the Joint Secretary Dept. of Revenue Ministry of Finance and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Overseas Thr. Sole Working Partner Sanjay Anup Jain v. Union of India Thr. the Joint Secretary Dept. of Revenue Ministry of Finance and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Spie Capag S.A. Vs the Office of the Commissioner of Customs and Anr.

Om Consulting Services through Its Proprieror Om Prakash R. Pandey Vs Union of India and Ors.

Shalaka Infra-Tech India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sarla Polyester Limited Vs the Union of India and Anr.

Kastur Pulse Mill Vs Union of India and Ors.

Vasant Laxman Bhat Vs M/S. Arcil and Ors.