[300 G-H] (vii)The amount of penalty imposed by the Additional Collector was legal and its reduction to Rs. [294 F-G; 300 F] (vi)Since the Additional Collector of Customs acted within his jurisdiction in checking and confiscating the goods in question on the ground that they were not ‘steel skull scrap’ which alone was allowed to be exported under the licence, the High Court or the Supreme Court did not have in exercising writ jurisdiction, power to question, when mala fides was not alleged, his opinion about the nature of the goods sought to be exported.
The certification of the goods by such an officer did not make them exportable. Mehta in regard to the communications addressed by the respondent to him appears to us to be fully justified but, in our opinion, this aspect of the matter cannot have any material bearing on the question with which we are concerned. discloses an attitude of disobedience and insubordination which no Government can tolerate from its subordinate officers”.
Cuddapah Star Transport Co. The licensing authority could therefore provide in the licence that steel scrap of a particular variety would be exported. In the present case the alienee has instituted a suit for general partition with the prayer that he may be put in possession of that part of the family Property Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court which may be allotted to his alienor. He found that the three charges framed against the respondent were proved. The main relief sought by the plaintiff is the relief for possession of that part of the property which may be allotted to the alienor’s share and a relief for partition is only a machinery for working out his right and ancillary to the main relief for possession of the Property Lawyers Chandigarh allotted to the alienor’s share.
(2); and Suganchand Saraogi v. [301 G] (v)Section 3(2) of the Exports Control Act makes the provisions of the Sea Customs Act applicable in respect of goods whose export or import is prohibited, restricted or controlled by an order made under s. 1,000 by the single Judge was not correct. on the 19th December 1960, when, or whereafter, they may present themselves at the company’s Office for receiving payment of their wages and other dues, if any, during working hours”, and then mentions the names of 119 workmen of the cane carriers department.
It is not right to consider such a suit as a suit for more partition. Mehta proceeded to examine the documentary evidence showing the failure of the respondent to comply with the orders issued by Government and made his report on November 24, 1951. The exported goods will be in accordance with the licence only if they come within the specified variety. 64 0 It is true that an alienee of an undivided interest of a Hindu coparcener is not entitled to joint possession with the other coparcener and he is also not entitled to separate possession of any part of the family Property Lawyer in High Court Chandigarh.
The Export Control Order was made under s. Questions about the right of persons detained under the Defence of India Rules to move the Court have come up frequently before this Court and many of the arguments which are raised here have already been considered in a series of cases. They did not consider the scope of the revision before the Commissioner and whether the orders made thereunder satisfied the well settled tests of “judicial act” laid down by this Court.
[303 D] Ranchoddas Atmaram v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcutta(3). 3(1) and therefore the Customs Authorities could exercise their powers under the Sea Customs Act in respect of the goods sought to be exported by the respondents. For example, it has been ruled in Mohan Choudhury v. In our view, for the reasons mentioned by us earlier, the said judgments were decided wrongly. The validity of the impugned order must be judged objectively without considering the impropriety of the language used by the respondent or the reluctance shown by him to appear before Mr.
[300 D-E] (iv)The note of the Iron and Steel Controller on the shipping bill after inspection of the goods at the dock does not amount to a licence. But the alienee is entitled to obtain possession of that part of the family property which might fall to the share of his alienor at a partition. Moreover in the present case the goods were not inspected by the Iron and Steel Controller himself but by an officer who was not entitled to issue a licence under Schedule 11. The present appeal is brought by special leave on behalf of the State of Gujarat and the other appellants against the order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the Special Civil Application no.
Mehta observed that “the conduct of the respondent and the language used by him from time to time in his communications . Mehta wrote to the respondent that he would be glad to hear him in person in case he wished to make an oral statement on November 20, 1951, and when the respondent did not 140 appear on the said date, Mr. What the alienee acquires by a purchase is not any interest in specific family Top Property Advocates in Chandigarh but only an equity to enforce his right in a suit of partition and have the Property Lawyer in High Court Chandigarh alienated set apart for the alienor’s share, if possible.
Union of India, [1961] INSC 34; [1961] 3 S. “Their final account will be ready for payment by 4 p. They had power to check the goods to see whether they were being exported under and in accordance with the licence. The respondents should have pursued the remedies under the Act. We may incidentally observe that the comment thus made by Mr.