0

The Delhi High Court quashed the criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial differences in light of amicable settlement between the parties.

Blog , ,

Case Title: VIPUL MEHTA AND ANR. Versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR

Case No: CRL.M.C. 3771/2024

Decided on: 10th May , 2024

Quorum: HON’BLE JUSTICE Mr. ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA

Facts of the case

In the document, a case involving applications to quash FIRs pertaining to marriage problems is discussed. The court took into account the nature of the offenses, the impact on society, and the settlement reached between the parties. Even with a settlement, serious crimes like rape, murder, and dacoity cannot be erased. On the other hand, infractions that involve a civil dispute or small events in which the victim receives compensation can be eligible for quashing. The court also assesses whether there is sufficient evidence to convict the accused party and whether there is little chance of a compromise. Because the parties in this case reached a friendly settlement, the court decided to quash the FIRs.

Issues

1. Whether aspects of the parties’ settlement are taken into account by the court while determining whether to dismiss criminal charges?

Legal Provisions

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) is a provision that safeguards the inherent powers of the High Courts in India. It states:

“Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

Appellant’s Contentions

The appellant argues that a variety of case-specific considerations determine whether criminal proceedings may be quashed in light of a settlement reached between the parties. Even In cases when a settlement is reached, serious crimes like murder, rape, and dacoity are typically not overturned. On the other hand, offenses pertaining to civil disputes or small instances in which the victim receives compensation can be subject to quashing. The evidence for the alleged offense is evaluated by the court, together with the possibility that the conviction is unlikely because of a settlement reached by the parties. Because the parties in this case reached a friendly settlement, the court decided to quash the FIRs.

Respondent’s Contentions

The respondent admits that every situation is different when it comes to whether or not to dismiss criminal charges in light of an agreement between the parties. Even after a settlement, serious crimes like murder, rape, and dacoity are usually not overturned. On the other hand, offenses pertaining to civil disputes or small instances in which the victim receives compensation can be subject to quashing. The evidence for the alleged offense is also assessed by the court, as is the possibility that the conviction will be slim because of a settlement reached by the parties. The responder in this particular instance affirms that all disagreements have been.

Court Analysis and Judgement

This document is a ruling from a court in which two distinct petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were brought in an attempt to void marriage-related police reports. The court took into account the nature of the offenses, the impact on society, and the settlement reached between the parties. Even after a settlement, serious crimes like murder and rape cannot be undone, but small occurrences or crimes involving a civil dispute can. Since the issue was handled peacefully, the court opted not to impose costs but instead to dismiss the FIRs and order the petitioners to plant trees as a symbolic gesture. The ruling puts a stop to the procedures and fosters harmony.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

The Delhi High Court quashed the FIR on serious offences like murder and rape in light of amicable settlement between the parties.

Blog , ,

Case Title:  MAHENDER AND ORS. Versus STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.

Case No:  W.P.(CRL) 1483/2024

Decided on: 10th May , 2024

Quorum: HON’BLE JUSTICE Mr. ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA

Facts of the case

In this matter, a petition under Sections 354/323/324/34 IPC is being filed to have FIR No. 0353/2015 quashed. The petition was filed in response to an alleged incident in which the petitioner reportedly beat the complainant’s kid and touched her inappropriately. The parties reached a friendly settlement, and the State has no issues with the FIR being quashed as a result of the settlement . In order to ensure justice and stop the misuse of the legal system, the petitioners used Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The offense’s nature and social impact determine whether criminal proceedings may be halted. Although minor incidents with no social impact can be considered for quashing, serious offenses such as murder or rape cannot be overturned.

Issues

  1. What criteria are used to decide whether to invoke Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure’s power to quash criminal proceedings?

Legal Provisions

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) is a provision that safeguards the inherent powers of the High Courts in India. It states:

“Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

Appellant’s Contentions

The appellant argues that they have no more complaints because the case’s parties, who are neighbors, have reached an amicable settlement. They emphasize that there is little likelihood of conviction because of the peaceful settlement and that their goal in ending the proceedings is to foster harmony and go on with their lives. Thus, they contend that carrying on with the procedures would be pointless and a misuse of the legal system, which would result in the FIR and any associated actions being quashed.

Respondent’s Contentions

According to the respondent, there have been no more grievances because all disagreements between the parties have been resolved peacefully. They declare that they want to put an end to the conflict so that everyone may get on with their lives and live in harmony. The likelihood of conviction is low due to the friendly settlement, and pursuing the case further would be a misuse of the legal system. The FIR has been quashed, along with the accompanying procedures under Sections 354/323/324/34 IPC.

Court Analysis and Judgement

The ruling highlights the significance of taking into account the nature of the offense and its impact on society as it analyzes the petitioners’ use of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to dismiss criminal proceedings because the parties involved reached an amicable settlement .Even with a settlement, serious crimes like murder and rape cannot be quashed, but smaller occurrences or personal infractions might be .The parties, who are neighbors, have reached a settlement that will result in the quashing of the FIR and any associated actions in an effort to foster harmony and move on with life.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace

 

0
delhi high court

Justice, not law, is, what we have given to ourselves in our constitutional scheme- Delhi High Court

blog , , , , ,

Case title: Dr. Sri Kiruba Nandini M v. National Board of Examination and Anr.

Case no: W.P.(C) 5633/2024

Dated on: May 10

Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar

Facts of the case:

The petitioner has approached this Court, through Writ Petition, seeking an appropriate writ, order or direction, to set aside the letter dated 12-15 March 2024 whereby the Petitioner’s DNB candidature was cancelled. The petitioner completed her MBBS from Annapoorana Medical College and thereafter she appeared for NEET and was admitted to the DNB post-MBBS in Obstetrics and Gynaecology by the Respondent 1 – National Board of Examinations (NBE) where she was to undergo training in Apollo Hospital. In the third year of her training, the petitioner was diagnosed as suffering from Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML). Chemotherapeutic treatment of the petitioner started on 30 September 2022. Due to Covid-19 pandemic her condition worsened and was placed on ventilator support. On 15 November 2022 she was discharged from the hospital after having undergone 50 days continuous treatment. On 18 January 2023, the petitioner was again admitted to Apollo Hospital where she underwent allogenic stem cell transplant. On 23 May 2023, Fitness Certificate was issued by certifying that the petitioner was on intensive anti-cancer treatment since 27 September 2022 and that she was fit to rejoin work on 10 July 2023. On 21 July 2023, the petitioner rejoined duties at the Apollo Hospital. On 3 October 2023, the Apollo Hospital wrote to the NBEMS, informing that the petitioner was diagnosed with AML on 27 September 2022, for which she had been on continuous treatment; and that she had taken 296 days of leave. The petitioner was extending her course from 19 August 2023, and that the course would be completed on 10 June 2024. On 11 February 2024, the petitioner apprised the NBEMS of her health condition and requested to extend her DNB training programme from 18 August 2023 to 10 June 2024. On 22 February 2024, the NBEMS wrote to Apollo Hospital expressing serious concerns regarding availment of leave without prior approval from NBEMS. The Apollo Hospital replied by stating that they had informed the NBEMS of the critical state of health of the petitioner and the hospital was waiting for the petitioner to recover to submit the requisite documents.  

Issues:

Whether NBEMS was justified in cancelling the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner remained absent from DNB training, without prior approval of the NBEMS?  

  Contentions of the appellant:

The petitioner submitted her response explaining the health issues and to accept her leave under extraordinary circumstances and extend the course from 17.08.2023 to 10.06.2024. The NBEMS vide the impugned communication dated 12-15 March 2024 informed the hospital that the petitioner’s DNB candidature had been cancelled by stating that the training institute did not inform NBEMS regarding her absence and that a DNB Trainees can avail a maximum of 30 days of leave in a year and under normal circumstances leave of one year will not be carried forward to the next year and in exceptional cases such as prolonged illness, the leave may be clubbed with prior approval of NBE.  

Contentions of the respondent:

If the petitioner was indisposed for the period during which she did not attend training, she ought to have submitted a leave application so that her request for leave shall be considered by the NBEMS. Prior approval of NBEMS is necessary before a candidate proceeds on leave. It was only on 3 October 2023 that the Apollo Hospital, Chennai wrote to the NBEMS, informing the petitioner’s prior period of absence. It was only six months after the petitioner had rejoined duty in Apollo Hospital that she addressed an application to the NBEMS, seeking regularisation of the period of her absence from duty of 297 days.

Courts analysis and Judgement:

It is clear from the sequence of events and records that the petitioner was in a critical state of health for the entire period during which she remained absent from training. The petitioner was not in a position to submit leave application or forward medical document either to the Hospital or to the NBEMS. The NBEMS does not dispute the bona-fides of the petitioner’s contention that she was undergoing treatment for the critical illness. The claim is also supported by medical documents. On interpreting Rules 4 to 6 of the Leave Rules, it is observed that they do not stipulate that absence from training without prior approval of the NBEMS can result in cancellation of the candidate’s DNB candidature. Rule 5 states that unauthorised absence from DNB/FNB training for more than seven days may lead to cancellation of registration and hence the usage of the word “may” indicate element of discretion. While deciding whether or not to cancel the DNB candidature, the NBEMS is required to keep all these relevant factors and judiciously exercise the said discretion. A distinction needs to be drawn where the absence of the candidate is negligent or unjustified, from a case in which the absence is bona-fide and owing to circumstances which is beyond the control of the candidate. The NBEMS has to keep in mind the overall public interest. The cancellation of the entire DNB program for the reason that the petitioner did not seek leave in advance would not only destroy her morale but would also do complete disservice to the cause of justice. Any decision to cancel the petitioner’s DNB candidature would clearly result in injustice to the petitioner. The two factors which the NBEMS is required to see is whether the seat is carried over, or whether grant of extension to the candidate would compromise the training of existing trainees but no such contention was averred. The petitioner had never issued any show cause notice proposing to cancel her DNB candidature. The communication dated 22 February 2024 is cautioning her to adhere with the NBEMS leave rules. Cancellation of the DNB candidature of a candidate is an extremely serious matter. In Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. U.O.I. concerning strict compliance with the principle audi alteram partem would apply here with all force. No such decision can be taken without issuing a show cause notice wherein the Candidate is not only required to show cause against cancellation of her candidature, but must also set out the reasons and thereafter an opportunity of personal hearing before taking a decision. The Respondent has failed to follow these procedures and hence the impugned decision cannot sustain in law. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 12/15 March 2024 is quashed and set aside. The DNB candidature of the petitioner is restored. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly, with no orders as to costs.  

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a national award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer”.

Judgement reviewed by- Parvathy P.V.
Click here to read the judgement


 

0
new delhi court

Grant of stay of conviction is not a rule, but an exception to be decided on facts and circumstances of cases- Delhi High Court

blog , , , , ,

Case title: Daya Nand Chandela v. State

Case no: CRL.A. 835/2010 & CRL.M. (BAIL) 746/2024

Dated on: 10May

Quorum: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Facts of the case:

The applicant/appellant is seeking suspension of conviction order passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS, Rohini, Delhi the cause of action which is arising out of FIR, registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar, Delhi for offences punishable under Section 452/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). On 11.12.2008, at about 4:10 pm, Tilak Nagar Police Station received information regarding an attack on the residence of an MLA and by the time the police arrived, injured/victims had already been taken to DDU Hospital, Delhi. Mr.Sudesh Chandela who is the complainant/victim/ informed the police that they had lent Rs. 50,000/- to one Sufi, who absconded without repaying the amount. The complainant rented jhuggi of Sufi and thereafter, the neighbours of the complainant informed that one Manoj who is the co-accused herein had come and put a lock on the said jhuggi which prompted the complainant Sudesh Chandela and his companion to go to Dayanand Chandela’s residence who is the present applicant/appellant along with Manoj. Both of them confronted the accused persons regarding the lock they put on the jhuggi who in turn explained that they also had financial claims against Sufi and since he had not been paying the said amount, they had locked his jhuggi. During the said conversation, there was heated arguments and thereafter, Dayanand Chandela arrived at the scene and took out a sword. The co-accused Nawab was armed with a sword, while Manoj and Meghraj carried sticks with them. Upon seeing the escalation of the issue, Sudesh Chandela and his other companions fled towards their house for safety. However, Dayanand Chandela, along with the three other co-accused followed them and struck Sudesh Chandela with a sword blow, which Sudesh managed to block. The co-accused Nawab, attacked him with a sword, and other co-accused Manoj and Meghraj assaulted with sticks. The accused persons targeted Sudesh’s father Harpal, his uncle Ram Gopal and his brother Ravinder who had intervened to protect the complainant. Thereafter, FIR was registered and after trial, the accused persons i.e; Nawab, Manoj, Megh Raj and the present applicant Dayanand Chandela were convicted by the learned Trial Court.  

Issue:

Whether the Applicant is entitled to get the suspension/stay of conviction order.  

Legal provisions:

Section 452- House tresspass

Section 307- of the IPC- attempted murder.  

Contentions of the appellant:

The present applicant is aged about 70 years and is a distinguished public figure. The applicant wishes to contest the Lok Sabha Elections 2024 to be held in Delhi on 25.05.2024, and the last date for filing of nomination is 06.05.2024. The present applicant has clean antecedents and has never been convicted. The applicant has won Delhi and Rajouri Garden assembly elections. In the year 2013, when the applicant submitted nomination forms, the Returning Officer on account of judgment and the order of sentence disqualified him. Due to the order of conviction dated 03.06.2010, he cannot contest the upcoming Lok Sabha General Elections, 2024 due to the bar imposed by Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. There are substantial legal and factual questions involved in the present appeal. It would be in the interest of justice to allow him to contest the upcoming Lok Sabha elections by suspending his conviction.  

Contentions of the respondent:

The applicant had earlier filed two applications for suspension of order of conviction dated 03.06.2010 i.e., in the year 2015 which was dismissed on 15.01.2015, and the other application in the year 2019 which was also dismissed on 10.01.2020. The Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant and appreciated the evidence in detail. There are no grounds at this stage to come to the conclusion that the appellant is innocent and the appeal is going to result in acquittal. The evidence on record proved the guilt and therefore there are no grounds for suspension of the conviction. Thus, merely because the present applicant intends to contest the elections cannot be a ground to suspend the conviction.  

Courts analysis and judgement:

The Court noted judgment dated 15.01.2015 passed by the Predecessor Bench, wherein a similar application was moved, and the predecessor Court concluded that the application has no merit. The Court ruled that Petitioner has not made out a case where an order for suspension/ stay against conviction could be granted. The case does not appear to be of exceptional circumstances where if stay is not granted would result in causing injustice to the Petitioner. Supreme Court in Navjot Singh Sidhu held that “grant of stay of conviction is not a rule, but an exception to be resorted to in rare cases”. The appellant contested the election previously in the year 2008 and thereafter he didn’t contest elections. Hence, the application was dismissed. In the second application filed in 2019, the Court held that petitioner could not make out grounds for suspension of his conviction order so as to allow him to contest the elections. The grievance of the applicant is that he has been convicted under Sections 452/307/34 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo three years imprisonment. The appeal, preferred against the conviction order is still pending and the applicant has once again approached the Court praying to suspend the conviction order to enable him to contest the upcoming Lok Sabha Elections 2024. In Afjal Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that to suspend the conviction of an individual, the primary factors to be looked are the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, where the failure to grant stay would lead to injustice. In the present case, the applicant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years by the Trial Court after conclusion of trial. It will be inappropriate to discuss the case for assessing the merits at this stage, as that would mean premature adjudication of the main appeal. The present application is the third application for the same reason and the Predecessor Benches have passed detailed judgments after recording reasons to dismiss the applications. The applicant has not challenged either of the Orders dated 15.01.2015 or 10.01.2020. In case the applicant was aggrieved by the dismissal, he could have approached the Supreme Court by filing SLP which he has not done. The applicant had filed an application on 15.01.2020 for early hearing but the said application was withdrawn on 17.01.2020 which gives the impression that the applicant was not interested in getting his appeal heard expeditiously. The applicant by way of this application is again seeking suspension of the order of conviction on the ground that he wishes to contest the upcoming Lok Sabha Elections 2024, which according to the applicant, is a fresh ground and circumstance thereby relying on the case of Dilip Ray. The facts and circumstances of the said case is different for the reason that there the application seeking suspension of conviction was not rejected. If the applicant genuinely wished to contest the upcoming Lok Sabha Elections, he could have filed the present application earlier and could have sought for early hearing. Further, the applicant has not approached the Court with clean hands, since he failed to disclosed that he had filed two similar applications on earlier occasions and the same was dismissed. Therefore, this is not a fit case to suspend order dated 03.06.2010. There are no extraordinary circumstances to allow the present application. Hence, the application stands dismissed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a national award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer”.

Judgement reviewed by- Parvathy P.V.
Click here to read the judgement


 

0

Delhi High Court Rejects Exporter’s Appeal Due to Failure to Meet Notification Conditions for Banned Non-Basmati White Rice

Blog , , , , , ,

CASE TITLE – VI Exports India Private Limited v. Union of India

CASE NUMBER – LPA 147/2024 & CM APPLs.10786-88/2024

DATED ON – 30.04.2024

QUORUM – Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice / Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Appellant in this case, is an exporter of rice and other agricultural products. The case is brought before the High Court to contest the issue of the exporter not being allowed to export 11,000 MT of rice to an overseas buyer, due to a Notification issued by the Department of Commerce, Government of India, dated 20th July, 2023, which came into effect at 21:57:01 hours. The said Notification was further amended vide Notification dated 29th August, 2023, wherein the time by when the details had to be entered into the Customs system was mentioned. Further, an additional category for exemption was also introduced wherein if the custom duty is paid before 21:57:01 hrs on 20 th July, 2023, then the consignment could be permitted for export. The Appellant was ready to ship 28,000 MT of rice at the start, in between 10th July, 2023 and 20th July, 2023 till around 12:07 hrs., the Appellant filed its 28 shipping bills on the Customs portal i.e., ICEGATE, which was set to be exported from the Kandla Port. The Appellant, therefore, made an application before the port authority at Kandla seeking permission to store 28,000 MT of rice. It is stated that, however, due to lack of space at the port, the authority granted permission for storage only to the extent of 11,000 MT of rice. And the remaining quantity i.e., 17,000 MT of rice, was stored at various private warehouses at Kandla itself. The Appellant had paid export duty for 17 shipping bills out of 28 within the stipulated time i.e., before 21:57:01 hrs on 20th  July, 2023, the Appellant was permitted to export 17,000 MT of rice, covered under the said 17 bills. However, the export of the remaining 11,000 MT was not allowed as the customs duty had not been paid, though the bills had been duly submitted on the ICEGATE portal of the Customs. The Appellant at the time being distressed by the inability to export the remaining 11,000 MT of rice, filed a writ petition pleading that he had taken all steps within its control before the cut-off date and, therefore, invoking the doctrine of substantial compliance with the exemption conditions mentioned in the Notification has sought permission to export the said consignment; this request was then declined and the writ petition dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment.

CONTENTIONS BY THE APPELLANT

The Appellant stated that concerning to condition no. (ii) set out in the Notification, all the shipping bills were filed prior to issuance of the Notification, and the rotation number for the vessel was allotted on 18th July, 2023.However, the vessel had not berthed or arrived and anchored before the issuance of the Notification. It is stated after the issuance of the said rotation number on 18th July, 2023, the vessel could have anchored at the port only when permission was granted by the port authority, which is beyond the Appellant’s control. He stated that with respect to condition no. (iii) of the Notification, the consignment had to be handed over to the Customs before 21:57:01 hrs on 20th July, 2023, which he had fulfilled when the Appellant had applied to Customs for entrance and storage of the entire quantity of 28,000 MT on 15th July, 2023.But, due to lack of space at the port, permission was given to store only 10,525 MT of rice, and the Appellant was constrained to store the remaining quantity at private warehouses near the port. The Appellant further pleaded, that since they had done everything in it’s power, as per the doctrine of substantial compliance, the Appellant ought to be permitted to export the 11,000 MT of rice and should not be penalized for the situation beyond its control.

CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENT

The Respondent stated that due to the global price hike of rice, there was also the increasing export of rice from India, which causes concern regarding the food security. Which then forced the issuance of the Notification. The Respondent further stated that Trade Notice issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) dated 18th August, 2023, it mentioned that the exemption conditions are independent of each other, and the export can be performed if they fill even any one of the said conditions. Which was not possible by the Appellant in this case, and due to which he also cannot rely upon the Doctrine of Substantial Compliance. He also stated that since there was no contention by the Appellant regarding the vires of the Notification, and also no infringement of Fundamental Rights of him, he cannot claim any Writ Petitions.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

Notification No. 20/2023, dated 26th July, 2023 (as modified by Notification dated 28th August, 2023)

The two exemptions that the Appellant is pleading that he comes under are (ii) and (iii).

(ii) where the shipping bill is filed and vessels have already berthed or arrived and anchored in Indian ports and their rotation number has been allocated before this Notification; The approval of loading in such vessels will be issued only after confirmation by the concerned Port Authorities regarding anchoring/berthing of the ship for loading of Non-basmati rice prior to the Notification. (iii) where Non-basmati rice consignment has been handed over to the Customs before 21:57:01 on 20.07.2023 and is registered in Customs system or where Non-basmati rice consignment has entered the Customs Station for exportation before 21:57:01 hours on 20.07.2023 and is registered in the electronic systems of the concerned Custodian of the Customs Station with verifiable evidence of date and time stamping of these commodities having entered the Customs Station prior to 21:57:01 hours on 20.07.2023. The period of export shall be upto 31.10.2023. It is admitted that the Appellant has neither challenged the validity of the Notifications dated 20th July, 2023 and 29th August, 2023, nor the constitutional vires of the said Notifications on the ground of it being violative of any fundamental rights of the Appellant. It is also admitted that the Appellant does not satisfy any independent condition of exemption in its entirety. It is stated that Respondent is obliged to enforce the said Notification uniformly on all the exporters so as to ensure that there is no allegation of arbitrariness or bias. The Appellant admits that the vessel had not been able to berth and anchor at the Port. The Appellant has not challenged the distinction carved out by the Respondent between (i) the vessels, which have anchored and berthed/arrived at the port; and (ii) vessels, which may have arrived in Indian waters, but are awaiting berthing and anchoring. Similarly, with respect to compliance of condition no. (iii) the Appellant has fairly admitted that it was unable to handover the consignment of 11,000 MT to the Customs before the appointed time nor the consignment had entered the Customs station for exportation before the appointed time. Each of the five independent exemptions have essential requirements which the applicant exporter must comply with for completing the export. The Appellant fails to comply with the essential conditions in each of the exceptions Due to the facts mentioned above, the High Court had stated that it was unable to find any merit in the appeal, because of which, the same was dismissed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Gnaneswarran Beemarao

1 2 3 … 18