#dismissed Archives - Page 2 of 5

11 Oct

To prove undervaluation in customs duty cases, the Supreme Court requires evidence of contemporaneous import prices, or else the benefit of the doubt favors the importer.

Blog # Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH, # Supreme Court, #appeal, #arbitration, #dismissed, #Jurisdiction

Case Title: Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai v. M/s Ganpati Overseas through its Proprietor Shri Yashpal Sharma & Anr

Decided on: 06 October,2023

Neutral Citation: 2023INSC881

CORAM : B.V. Nagarathna, Ujjal Bhuyan

INTRODUCTION

The case of “Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai v. M/s Ganpati Overseas” revolves around allegations of under-invoicing of imported goods from Hong Kong and the subsequent imposition of penalties by Customs authorities in India. The Supreme Court examined the rejection of invoice prices, the burden of proof in under-valuation cases, and the reliance on foreign export declarations.

The Court upheld the decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) to set aside the penalties and value enhancements, setting a precedent in customs valuation rules and evidence standards.

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the case where under-invoicing imported goods from Hong Kong, potentially evading customs duty. The case reached the Supreme Court after the Customs Commissioner imposed penalties.

The central issue was the rejection of the invoice price and the burden of proof for under-valuation. The Customs Valuation Rules were essential in this case. The Supreme Court upheld the CESTAT’s decision to set aside the penalties, emphasizing the need for solid reasons and evidence for rejecting invoice prices in customs disputes.

This case established a significant precedent for customs valuation rules and the burden of proof in similar cases.

Courts Analysis and Decision.

The court emphasized that the Customs department must provide solid reasons and evidence when rejecting invoice prices in customs disputes. The burden of proof for under-valuation lies with the department, and detailed inquiries and adequate evidence are required to allege under-valuation.

The Court noted that both the department and the adjudicating authority had not justified the rejection of the import invoice price as incorrect and the subsequent enhancement of the price. As a result, the CESTAT’s decision to set aside the penalties and value enhancements was upheld, and the appeals filed by the Customs Commissioner were dismissed. This case established a significant precedent in customs valuation rules and evidence standards.

“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. “

Written by- Kusuma R

11 Oct

The Allahabad High Court criticized the National Minorities Commission for overstepping its authority and summoning officers without valid grounds.

Prime Legal

Blog # Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH, # Supreme Court, # Writ Petition, #allahabad, #allahabadhighcourt, #dismissed, #Jurisdiction

Case Title: Divine Faith Fellowship Church and Another vs. State of U.P. And 5 Others 2023

Decided on: 26^th September, 2023

Writ no. – C No. – 30476 of 2023

CORAM : Hon’ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon’ble Prashant Kumar,J.

INTRODUCTION

The case of “Divine Faith Fellowship Church and Another vs. State of U.P. And 5 Others” in 2023 involves a dispute where a church-owned property in Uttar Pradesh, India, had been illegally occupied.

The petitioners, a Christian organization, sought legal action through the U.P. Commission for Minorities and later the National Commission for Minorities. The case primarily focuses on whether these commissions had the authority to adjudicate and order actions related to the property dispute and whether their actions exceeded their statutory jurisdiction.

Facts of the case:

The petitioners, an NGO associated with a church, claimed ownership of property including Shop no. 13/1.They sought to evict an unauthorized occupant from Shop no. 13/1. The U.P. Commission for Minorities treated the case as a civil matter and ordered an FIR against the occupant.

The National Commission for Minorities got involved, issuing orders to assist the petitioners. The dispute centered on whether these commissions had the authority to handle the property dispute, leading to a legal challenge. The Allahabad High Court ultimately ruled that the commissions had exceeded their jurisdiction in this case.

Courts Analysis and Decision.

The court highlighted the limited statutory functions of these commissions, primarily aimed at safeguarding minority interests. Emphasized that these commissions do not possess the authority to adjudicate property disputes.

Criticized the practice of summoning government officers and pressuring them to pass orders beyond their jurisdiction. Reiterated that public officers should not be called to court unnecessarily. Deplored the commissions’ tendency to function as if they were courts, calling it an abuse of their position. Noted that such actions could result in the removal of commission members. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition and affirmed that the commissions had acted beyond their authorized functions in the property dispute, underscoring the importance of respecting the separation of powers between the judiciary and executive branches.

Written by- Kusuma R

17 Aug

Section 5 Limitation Act| Court Must Not Discriminate Against Government Agencies, Government Has Special Obligation To Perform Duties: High Court of Delhi

Prime Legal

Blog #delay, #delhi, #delhicourt, #delhihighcourt, #dismissed, #health, #healthdepartment

Title: Department of Health v. Kamla Mehndiratta and Ors.
Ordered on: 4th August, 2023

+ CM APPL. Nos. 20019/2019 and 20017/2019 in W.P.(C) 3613/2004 & CM APPL. 20068/2022 & CM APPL. 20069/2022

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH

Introduction

The Delhi High Court recently declined to condone an inordinate delay of 691 days in an application seeking restoration of a petition filed by a government agency. The Court emphasized that government agencies, despite facing bureaucratic delays, must provide valid reasons for such delays. The case raised questions about the admissibility of the application given the substantial delay and the requirement for sufficient cause to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Facts

The petitioner, a government agency, sought restoration of a petition that had been dismissed in default by the Labour Court. The petition had challenged an order of the Labour Court concerning the appointment and promotion of the respondent, who was initially appointed on a temporary basis and later worked as a regular staff member. The petitioner filed the restoration application after a delay of 691 days.

Analysis and Held

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh, a Single Judge Bench, underscored the significance of providing sufficient cause to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. While acknowledging that government agencies may encounter procedural delays, the Court emphasized that unexplained delays of such magnitude could set a precedent for more similar applications.

The Court acknowledged the petitioner’s argument, which cited frequent changes in panel advocates and the resulting delay in restoration application filing. However, the Court expressed dissatisfaction with the petitioner’s failure to act in a timely manner despite ample resources at its disposal.

Justice Singh highlighted the special obligation of government agencies to perform duties diligently and committedly. Condonation of delay should be an exception and not a convenience for government departments. The Court emphasized that the phrase “sufficient cause” is pivotal in seeking extension of the prescribed period, requiring the petitioner to justify the delay convincingly.

In light of these considerations, the Delhi High Court held that the petitioner failed to satisfy the court that there existed a sufficient cause justifying the delay of 691 days in filing the application seeking restoration. Consequently, the Court declined to condone the delay and upheld the dismissal of the application for restoration.

Written by- Ankit Kaushik

Click here to view order

10 Aug

The prosecution’s failure to establish its case against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt charged under Sections 376,201 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code- Appeal dismissed Gujarat high court

Prime Legal

Blog #dismissed, #Gujarathighcourt

TITLE: Minaben D/O Chauhan v State of Gujarat

Decided On-: 12/07/2023

2253 of 2022

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Umesh Trivedi and M.K Thakker

INTRODUCTION- In accordance with Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the first informant-victim appealed the judgment and order of acquittal.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The respondent is accused of breaking into the appellant’s home on February 23, 2020, around 2:00 p.m., and committing an act of rape over her while brandishing a knife, threatening to kill the appellant’s parents in the process. As the respondent-accused was her third-generation cousin, she was terrified by the accused’s behaviour at knifepoint and lacked the courage to file the FIR right away. As a result, it took 6-7 days to be filed. According to the FIR filed, an investigation was conducted, and after sufficient evidence was gathered during the course of the investigation, the police authorities filed the charge-sheet, which ultimately led to the registration of a SessionsCase against the Respondent.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The prosecution used approximately 22 of the case’s records, including the testimony of nearly 12 witnesses, including the first informant and victim, to prove its case against the defendant.

knowledgeable advocate We have carefully read the Record and Proceedings and have heard from Mr. Kishore Prajapati for the appellant, learned attorney Ms. Shivangi M. Rana for the respondent-accused, as well as learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah for the State. The State has decided not to contest the learned Judge’s order of acquittal, according to Ms. CM Shah, a learned APP.

It is evident that the accused of the crime is none other than a close third-generation cousin, and that there is a dispute regarding property between the two families, after listening to the learned advocates for the various parties and taking the evidence presented to the court into consideration while reading the Record and Proceedings of the case. Therefore, before accepting or rejecting the evidence presented to the court, careful consideration of the evidence is necessary.

There is once more a significant discrepancy between the victim’s history as provided to the doctor and the deposition provided to the court.

Although the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the “Code” was produced and proved by the victim herself, who had signed it and verified her signature, it is useless unless the events described in the statement were not deposed to before the Court and it did not support the deposition.

However, in the cross-examination, it is revealed that there has been a dispute between two families for years, and despite efforts by village residents, their relations have not improved. This raises questions about the crime and the way it was committed, which were both claimed by the witnesses.

Appeal Dismissed

Written by- Steffi Desousa

Click here to view judgement

8 Aug

The Delhi High Court objects to the use of printed forms for matrimonial settlement agreements and directs mediation centres and family courts to ensure proper drafting.

Prime Legal

Blog #delhi, #delhicourt, #delhihighcourt, #dismissed

Title: Vivek Kumar & Ors. v. State & Anr.
Decided on: 27th July, 2023

+ CRL.M.C. 5205/2023

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has issued a directive regarding the drafting of matrimonial settlement deeds, emphasizing that they should not be on printed proforma. In a case related to a matrimonial dispute, the court expressed its concern about settlement agreements being mechanically drafted on printed forms and directed Mediation Centres and Family Courts to ensure proper drafting of settlement deeds.

Facts

The case pertains to a petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.PC seeking the quashing of a case registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner and respondent got married in 2015, but differences and disputes led to their separation. An FIR was filed by the wife, and during the proceedings, the parties entered into an amicable settlement through a deed. The divorce was granted, and the husband made a payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- as per the settlement terms.

Advocates Sanjeev Kumar, Wahid Ali, and Ram Kamal Prasad represented the petitioners, while APP Digam Singh Dagar and Advocate Aman Srivastava appeared for the respondents.

Analysis

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma, in the context of dealing with matrimonial disputes, expressed dissatisfaction with the common practice of drafting settlement agreements using printed proforma. The court believed that such proforma-based drafting lacked proper application of mind and conveyed a sense of mechanical processing. In line with this, the court directed Mediation Centres and Family Courts to ensure that settlement deeds are not drafted on printed proforma and should reflect proper consideration.

Held

The High Court observed that the parties had entered into an amicable settlement without any force, fear, or coercion, thereby deciding to conclude the proceedings and move forward with their lives. Considering the voluntary settlement and the divorce decree already granted, the court found no purpose in continuing the trial.

The court emphasized the need for settlement deeds to adhere to the judgment in the case of Ganesh vs. Sudhirkumar Shrivastava (2020) 20 SCC 787, which sets standards for drafting settlement deeds. The court directed the circulation of its judgment to all Mediation Centres and Family Courts, urging them to draft settlement deeds that demonstrate proper application of mind and alignment with the mentioned legal precedent.

Consequently, the Delhi High Court disposed of the petition.

Written by- Ankit Kaushik

Click here to to view Judgement

1 2 3 4 5