Dismissed

Plus Max Duty Private Limited, v. P.N.Rao

Kerala HC28 May 2019Con.Case(C)/475/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge closed the contempt petition filed against Customs officials for alleged disobedience of orders in WP(C) 21063/2018. Counsel for both parties consented to close the case as no further order was deemed necessary since the respondent had complied with relevant directions.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed accordingly as counsel consented to no further order being necessary.

Plus Max Duty Private Limited, Vs P.N.Rao — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2019 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1941 Con.Case(C).No. 475 of 2019 IN WP(C). 21063/2018

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 21063/2018 of HIGHCOURT

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

PLUS MAX DUTY PRIVATE LIMITED, NO.86/18,ROYAL COMPLEX, SANKARI ROAD, SEETHARAMAPALAYAM, THIRUCHENGODU,NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU,-637 209 REP.BY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, MR.SARAVANAN SUBRAMANI, SON OF SUBRAMANI, AGED 30 YEARS

¶8

BY ADVS. SATISH PARASARAN K.M.D.MUHILAN SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS SUBHANG P.NAIR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 P.N.RAO (AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER),THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ZONE, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 018

¶11

2 MR.SUMIT KUMAR, (AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE,5TH FLOOR, CATHOLIC CENTER, BROADWAY,COCHIN,ERNAKULAM-682 031

¶12

BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA

¶13

CGC SRI. JAISHANKAR V. NAIR

¶14

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.05.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Con.Case(C).No. 475 of 2019 IN WP(C). 21063/2018

¶16

-2-

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The Contempt case is filed complaining disobedience of the

¶19

directions issued in W.P.(C) No.21063 of 2018 dated 21.12.2018. The learned counsel appearing for both the parties submit that the first direction in judgment dated 21.12.2018 in W.P.(C) No.21063 of 2018 is stayed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ appeal No. 360/2019 dated 18.03.2019. The respondent vide order No. 01/2019 dated 01.04.2019 has complied with the other direction issued in the judgment dated 21.12.2018. The statement made by both the counsel is placed on record. The counsel consent to closing the Contempt case as no further order is necessary.

¶20

Contempt Case is closed accordingly.

Sd/-

S.V.BHATTI

JUDGE

Con.Case(C).No. 475 of 2019 IN WP(C). 21063/2018

¶26

-3-

¶27

APPENDIX

¶28

PETITIONER'S/S ANNEXURES:

¶29

ANNEXURE-1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P(C) NO.21063/2018

¶30

ANNEXURE-2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 30.12.2018 SENT BY THE PETITIONER

¶31

ANNEXURE-3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 31.12.2018 SENT BY THE PETITIONER

¶32

ANNEXURE-4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31.12.2018 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶33

ANNEXURE-5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01.01.2019 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶34

ANNEXURE-6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02.01.2019 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶35

ANNEXURE-7 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTEMPT NOTICE DATED 16.01.2019

¶36

ANNEXURE-8 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTEMPT CASE (C) NO.248 OF 2019 WITHOUT ANNEXURES FILED BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT

¶37

ANNEXURE-9 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.1/2019 IN W.P(C) NO.21063 OF 2018

¶38

ANNEXURE-10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN I.A.NO.1/2019 IN W.P(C) NO.21063 OF 2018 DATED 19.02.2019

¶39

ANNEXURE-11 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY ON 15.02.2019

¶40

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES:

¶41

-4-

¶42

Con.Case(C).No. 475 of 2019 IN WP(C). 21063/2018

¶43

ANNEXURE A1(A)

¶44

A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN DATED 01.04.2019.

Plus Max Duty Private Limited, v. P.N.Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Plus Max Duty Private Limited, v. P.N.Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.K.Nazar, Vs Attingal Municipality

Molly Suresh Vs District Collector

Anulal O., Vs the Union of India

P.U.Mohandas Vs the Regional Transport Officer/Taxation Officer

Kovilakam Inn India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner (Assessment)

Exide Industries Limited, Vs Assistant State Tax Officer