In a civil revision petition under Section 115 CPC, the High Court of Kerala dismissed the challenge to the Sub Court of Thiruvalla finding a suit maintainable against a Customs Officer, holding that the bona fide nature of an act is a question of evidence.
Petition under Section 115 CPC dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930
CRP.No. 22 of 2008()
-------------------OS.55/2001 of SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA
REVN. PETITIONER: 6TH DEFENDANT
SRI.SAYED MOHAMMED, INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, COCHIN.
BY ADV. SRI.TOMY SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENTS: PLAINTIFFS
BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG FOR R7,8 SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE (SR.) FOR R.2,3,4,5, SRI.V.MANOJ KUMAR FOR R.2,3,4,5, SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. FOR R.2,3,4,5 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R7 & R8
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
C.R.P.No.22 of 2008
Dated this the 20th June, 2008.
O R D E R
Petitioner is the sixth defendant in O.S.No.55 of 2001, on the file of the Sub Judge, Thiruvalla. First respondent is the plaintiff. The suit was instituted for realisation of Rs.1,29,250/= as damages. Petitioner in the written statement disputed the maintainability of the suit relying on Sections 128 and 158 of the Customs Act. Under order dated 14.7.2006, learned Sub Judge found that suit is maintainable, rejecting the objection taken by the petitioner under Section 155(1) of the Customs Act. It is challenged in this petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent were heard.
follows:-
CRP.No.22/2008
2
“ 155. Protection of action taken under the Act – (1) No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against the Central Government or any officer of the Government or a local authority for anything which is done, or intended to be done in good faith, in pursuance of this Act or the rules or regulations.”
Central Government or any officer of the Government or a local authority for anything which is done or intend to be done in good faith in pursuance of the Customs Act or the Rules or Regulations framed thereunder. True, Sub-section (1) of Section 155 of the Customs Act protects the Central Government, as well as any officer of the Central Government for any act done in pursuance of the Act, or the rules or the regulations, provided, the act done was in good faith. In the plaint, it was alleged that the act done was malafide. The question whether the act done was bonafide or malafide could be decided only on the evidence to be recorded. In such circumstances, without evidence, it cannot be held that suit will not lie, as the act is bonafide. Therefore, suit cannot be dismissed as not maintainable, as sought for. The question whether the act was bonafide or not is to be
CRP.No.22/2008
3
decided by the court on the evidence to be recorded. Petition is dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE
nj.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a suit challenging the maintainability of a claim for damages under Section 155(1) of the Customs Act is maintainable.
Whether the bonafide nature of an official act can be decided without recording evidence.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SRI.SAYED MOHAMMED
C.A.JOSEPH
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
