Disposed¶20

M/S. Galaxy International v. Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Jul 2025WP/9371/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

M/s. Galaxy International v. Union of India and Ors; WRIT PETITION NO.9371 OF 2025; Bombay High Court; Sonak and Sethna JJ.; false statements before Court; incorrect address in cause title; order dated 24 June 2025; Excise Department visit note 18 July 2025; Chaudhary Exports; Anand Kisan Varma partner; premises vacated August 2024; non-existent at premises; time sought to file affidavit; matter posted for directions on 10 September 2025.

What did the court decide?

Interim procedural direction only: time up to 10 September 2025 sought by and effectively allowed to the Petitioner's counsel to ascertain the factual position and, if necessary, file an affidavit; the matter was posted for directions on 10th September 2025. No substantive relief granted or refused on the record provided. ¶20

M/S. Galaxy International vs Union of India and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner made false statements before this Court — including its paragraph No.13 statement that its correct address was the one reflected in the cause title of the Petition — on the basis of which some favourable orders had been secured in the past.

¶14

Court's answer

On Mr. Shah (counsel for the Petitioner) seeking time up to 10 September 2025 to ascertain the factual position and, if necessary, to file an affidavit, the Court posted the matter on 10th September 2025 for directions. No merits finding was made at this stage.

¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No. 9371 of 2025 — M/s. Galaxy International v. Union of India and Ors; coram M.S. Sonak and Advait M. Sethna, JJ.; order dated 09 September 2025. At a directions hearing, counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contended that the Petitioner had made false statements before the Court — including its paragraph No.13 statement (referred to alongside this Court's earlier order of 24 June 2025) that its correct address was the one reflected in the cause title — on whose basis favourable orders had been secured. A visit note of the Excise Department dated 18 July 2025 recorded the address as closed, bearing the name 'Chaudhary Exports'; the premises owner reportedly stated the premises were rented in February 2024 to Anand Kisan Varma, a partner of the Petitioner, that Galaxy International then operated there, but had vacated in August 2024 and was 'non-existent' at the premises since. Counsel for the Petitioner sought time up to 10 September 2025 to ascertain the factual position and, if necessary, file an affidavit; the Court accordingly posted the matter on 10th September 2025 for directions.

¶1

6-WP-9371-25.DOCX

¶2

Sayali

¶3

SAYALI DEEPAK UPASANI

¶4

Digitally signed by SAYALI DEEPAK UPASANI Date: 2025.09.09 19:11:14 +0530

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.9371 OF 2025

¶7

M/s. Galaxy International … Petitioner Versus Union of India and Ors … Respondents

¶8

Mr. Prakash Shah, Senior Advocate with Mr. Brijesh Pathak with Mr. D. Jain , for Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Amey Deshpande , for Respondent No. 3.

¶10

Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra with Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Mr. Rupesh Dubey, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶11

CORAM : M.S. Sonak & Advait M. Sethna, JJ.

¶12

DATED : 09 September 2025

¶13

P.C.:-

¶14

At the outset, Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Respondents , pointed out that the Petitioner has made false statements before this Court, on the basis of which some favourable orders were also secured in the past. He referred to the order of 24th June 2025 and the statement in paragraph No.13 made under the instructions of the Petitioner that their correct address was the one reflected in the cause title of the Petition.

¶15

Page 1 of 2

¶16

6-WP-9371-25.DOCX

¶17

Mr. Mishra invited our attention to the visit note dated 18th July 2025 when the officials of the Excise Department visited the said address and were surprised to note that the same was closed. Even the name of the Petitioner did not appear on the said office premises. Instead, the name of ‘Chaudhary Exports’ was seen at the premises.

¶18

Mr. Mishra referred to the visit note in which it is stated that the owner of the premises informed the Officials that the premises were rented to Anand Kisan Varma, one of the partners of the Petitioner in February 2024 , and the Petitioner - M/s. Galaxy International was then operating from the said premises. However, the owner stated that M/s. Galaxy International had vacated the premises in August 2024 and since then ‘they are non-existent at the said premises’.

¶19

Mr. Shah seeks time up to 10 September 2025 to ascertain the factual position and if necessary, to file an affidavit.

¶20

Accordingly, we post this matter on 10th September 2025 for directions.

¶21

(Advait M. Sethna, J)

¶22

(M.S. Sonak, J.)

¶23

Page 2 of 2

M/S. Galaxy International v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Galaxy International v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prapeed Harishchandra Murudkar and Anr. vs Laxman Nikkam and 82 Ors.

Madina Masjid Khoni Thr. Its Trustess vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Revenue and Forest Department and Ors.

Sangietaa Kashinath Lokhande and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. Its Minister Relief and Rehabilitation Dept and Ors.

Gujarat Co. operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. vs The State of Maharashtra

Poseidon Shipping Agency Private Limited vs Chief Commissioner of Customs General

Willowood Chemicals Limited vs Union of India