LexCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA versus EAST INDIA COMMERCIAL CO. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 563 tenure-holders or under-tenure-holders and raiyats. It is, thus, clear that the. rent payable by the appollants as· raiyats in respect of the disputed lands would form part of the assets which have to be included rn the gross assets in determining compensatio·n. But that does not mean .that the interests ·of raiynts also have become vested in the State as a result of the notification under s. 3, read with s. 5. For the reasons aforesaid, it must be held that the appellant's raiyati interests in the lands and in the buildings standing on those lands have not been affected by the abolition of his interest as proprietors, and .that the State authorities had illegally taken possession of those. The ~.ppeal is accordingly allowed with oosts here and below. A ppe.al allOwf.d . COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA v. EAST INDIA COMMERCIAL CO. LTD. (B. P. SINHA, c. J ' P. B. QAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANOHOO, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, and T. L. VANKATARAMA AIYAR, JJ.) . Bea CWJtoms-Effect of confirmation of order. in appeal- Order of Collector merged into that of Central Board of Revenue -Sea CWJtoms Act, 1878 (8 of 1878). · J.. The respondent imported 2,000 drums of mineral oil and the appellant confiscated ·50 drums and imposed a perso- nal penalty. The appeal of the respondent was dismissed by the Central Board of Revenue. The respondent filed .a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the Culcutta High Court. .A Full Bench of the High Court held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to issue a writ against the Central Board of Revenue in view of the decision in the case ._ " of Baka Venkata Bubba Rao. However, as the Central Board of Revenue had merely dismisssd the appeal ~gainst the 1961 Kumsr Bimal CkaMtc-SJnha· v. Stole of Punjab -- Sinha C. J. 11141 c,,u~10F of Cullonu, Cal"""' .. Eatl India Comm. rclal Co. Lld. 564 .IDPREME OOUUT REPC.llil'S [1963] order of the appellant, the High Court further held that it had jurisdiction to pass an order against the appellant. The .~ appellant came to this Court after obtaining a certificate. l/e/d that the appellant had merged into that of the Central Board of Revenue and hence no order could be is.rued against the appellant. It is only the order of the appellate authority which is operative after the appeal is disposed of. It is immaterial whether the appellate order reverses the original order, modifies it or confirms it. The appellate order of confinnation is as efficacious as an operative order as an appellate order of reversal or modifica· tion. As the appellate authority in this case was beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, it was not open to the High Court to issue a writ to the original authority which was within its jurisdiction. Electwn Oommi8oion, India v. Saku Vankata Subba Rao, [195!] S. C. ;c 1144, A. Thangal Kunju Mudaliar v. M. Venkitachalam Poai, [1955] 2 S. C.R. 1196, Oommiuionu of lncome-taz v. M;'s. Amritlal Bltogilal & Oo. (1959] S. C.R. 713 and Madan <Iopa! Rungta v. Secre!ary to the Government of Oria80, (1962) (Supp.) 3 S.C.R. 906followed. Barkatali v. Ou8Wdian General of Emcu.e Property, A. I. R. 1954 Raj. 214, overruled. Joginckr Singh Waryam Singh v. Director, Rural Rthabili- 1 tation, Pep111J,, Patiala, A. I. R. 1955 Pepsu 91, Burhanpur National TextiZ. Worker. Tlnion v. J.abour Appellcm Tribunal of India at Bombay, A. I. R. 1955 Nag. 148, and Azmat Ullah v. Custodian, Evacuee Property, A.I.R. 1955 All 435, approved. Slatt of U. P. v. Mo/l!lmmed Nooh, (1958] S. C.R. 59S, distinguished. CIVIL APPELLATE Ju11.1sDIOT10N: Civil ,Appeal No. 383 of 1961. Appeal from the judgment and order dated J\ July 21, 1959, of tho Special Benc,h of the Culcutta High Court in J\latter No. 76 of 1952. D. R. Prem and R. L. Dhebar, for tho appel- lant and reapondente Noe. 2 and 3. S T D · nnd B. P. Mahexhwari, for res- . . esai- u ,., .. pondent No. 1. 2 s.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 565 1962. April 30. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANOHOO, .J.-This is an appeal· on a. certi- ficat.e ~ranted· by the Calcutta. High Court. The brief facts neceBBary for present purposes a.re these. The respondent had import.ad 2,000 drums of mineral oil. Out of this quantity, the appellant, the Collector of Customs, Calcutta., confiscated 50 drums by order dated September 20, 1950. He also imposed a personal pena
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.