1957 (2) TMI 55 - SC - Companies Law

Court upholds goods confiscation and license seizure, rejects contempt and monopoly claims

BHATNAGARS & CO. LTD. Versus UOI.

The court dismissed all petitions, upholding the confiscation of goods and seizure of licenses. The allegations of contempt, monopoly, and invalid ... Confiscation of the consignments of soda ash and against the seizure of his licences by the investigating authorities challenged Held that:- The contention that a finding made by a competent authority is based on no legal evidence is easy to make but very difficult to establish. Such a contention can succeed only when it is shown that there is really no legal evidence in support of the view taken by the appropriate authorities. In the present case, it is impossible to accede to the assumption that there is no legal evidence against the petitioner. His poor financial resources, his conduct at all material times when consignments were ordered, the suspicions attaching to the very existence of the firm Messrs. N. Jivanlal & Co. in Bombay and the prominent part played by this firm at all stages of the transaction in regard to the consignments as well as the reckless allegations which were made by the petitioner before the authorities which were found to be untrue by the appropriate authorities, cannot be summarily dismissed as being irrelevant or as not constituting legal evidence. At the highest it may be said that there are some circumstances on which Shri Umrigar wants to rely in favour of the bonafides of his client whereas there is. a large number of circumstances against him. If all the appropriate authorities, on considering these circumstances, concurrently found against the petitioner, that obviously is not a matter which can be legitimately agitated in the present petition. That is why we do not propose to deal with this aspect of the matter any further. Appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Confiscation of consignments of soda ash.2. Seizure and invalidation of import licenses.3. Alleged contempt of court by the Union of India and other respondents.4. Alleged monopoly created by government policy statements.5. Validity of delegated legislation under the Import-Export Act.6. Allegation of trafficking in licenses by the petitioner.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:Confiscation of Consignments of Soda Ash:The petitioner's grievance primarily concerns the confiscation of soda ash consignments by the Customs Authorities. It was found that the petitioner, though holding a license for importing soda ash, was trafficking in these licenses. The consignments were actually imported by Messrs N. Jivanlal & Co., who held no valid license. Consequently, the consignments were seized and confiscated by the Collector of Customs. The petitioner challenged this confiscation but failed to obtain relief from the Central Board of Revenue and the Central Government.Seizure and Invalidation of Import Licenses:The petitioner claimed that the seizure of his licenses and the subsequent confiscation of goods caused him significant prejudice, as the period during which the licenses were valid had expired by the time they were returned. He sought revalidation of these licenses to allow for the importation of goods during the unexpired period. The court held that while the authorities could have revalidated the licenses, this was not a matter that could be addressed under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petitioner's grievance was primarily against the factual conclusions reached by the relevant authorities, which could not be challenged in the present writ petition.Alleged Contempt of Court:In Petition No. 423 of 1956, the petitioner alleged that the Union of India and other respondents acted in contempt of court by not disposing of his revisional petition within a specified time. The court found that no such undertaking was given by the Solicitor-General, and the petitioner's assumption was entirely unwarranted. The period mentioned in the court's order was for the petitioner to move for Special Leave after the Central Government's decision. The court dismissed the petition as thoroughly unjustified and irresponsible.Alleged Monopoly Created by Government Policy Statements:In Petition No. 164 of 1956, the petitioner contended that the policy statements in a Press Note and Public Notice created a monopoly, violating his fundamental right to trade. The court held that the government's export and import policy must be flexible to meet national needs. The canalisation of soda ash import through selected organizations was to ensure even distribution and price stability, not to create a monopoly. The petitioner, not being an established importer, had no legitimate grievance. The petition was dismissed as misconceived.Validity of Delegated Legislation under the Import-Export Act:In Petitions Nos. 42 and 46 of 1956, the petitioner argued that the Import-Export Act did not apply to soda ash and that the legislation authorizing licenses amounted to invalid delegated legislation. The court rejected these arguments, stating that the Act provided clear principles and guidance for its implementation. The challenge to the Act on the grounds of delegated legislation was dismissed, citing precedents that upheld similar legislative frameworks.Allegation of Trafficking in Licenses:The petitioner was found to be trafficking in licenses, with the consignments ordered by Messrs N. Jivanlal & Co., who did not hold valid licenses. The court noted that the findings of fact by the relevant authorities were based on sufficient legal evidence, including the petitioner's financial resources and the role of Messrs N. Jivanlal & Co. The petitioner's argument that these findings were baseless was dismissed, and the court upheld the authorities' decisions.Conclusion:All petitions were dismissed with costs, as the court found no merit in the petitioner's claims. The confiscation of goods and the seizure of licenses were upheld, and the allegations of contempt, monopoly, and invalid delegated legislation were rejected. The court emphasized the need for flexible government policies in export and import matters and upheld the factual findings of the relevant authorities.