Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Court Rules Confiscated Goods Cannot Be Released Due to Hazardous Nature</h1> <h3>CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. Versus MARUT NANDAN OVERSEAS LTD.</h3> The court found that the application for release of containers by defendants 4 and 5 was not maintainable due to the hazardous nature of the goods. ... Hazardous substance Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of the application for release of containers by defendants 4 and 5.2. Impact of confiscation of goods on the release of containers.3. Operational concerns and safety issues raised by CCIL.4. Liability for warehouse charges.5. Vesting of confiscated goods in the Central Government.6. Compliance with Supreme Court orders regarding hazardous waste.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of the Application for Release of Containers by Defendants 4 and 5:The court found that the application for release of containers by defendant No. 4 was not maintainable. The plaintiff/respondent No. 1's application for release of goods was dismissed due to the hazardous nature of the goods, which was not disputed. Since the suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1, relief of this nature could not be granted to defendants 4 and 5. The court noted that defendants 4 and 5 should have brought separate proceedings against the plaintiff/respondent No. 1, CCIL, or customs authorities rather than filing an application in the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1.2. Impact of Confiscation of Goods on the Release of Containers:The court held that once the goods are confiscated, this confiscation includes the containers. The customs authorities and CCIL have no privity of contract with defendants 4 and 5, whose cause of action, if any, was against the plaintiff/respondent No. 1. The court rejected the argument that defendants 4 and 5 could seek the release of their containers through an application in the existing suit, as it would lead to multiplicity of litigation.3. Operational Concerns and Safety Issues Raised by CCIL:CCIL argued that the drums were leaking, and destuffing them would adversely affect the operational area of ICD, which is already beyond its operational capacity. The court agreed that the learned Single Judge had overlooked the operational and safety concerns raised by CCIL, including the potential jeopardy to the working conditions at ICD and the safety of personnel and nearby inhabitants.4. Liability for Warehouse Charges:The learned Single Judge had referred to a Supreme Court judgment and a Government of India office memorandum regarding the liability of warehouse charges. However, the court found this aspect irrelevant in the present case, as the goods had been confiscated by the customs authorities. The court held that the issue of who has to pay the warehouse charges was not pertinent once the goods were confiscated.5. Vesting of Confiscated Goods in the Central Government:The court emphasized that under Section 126 of the Customs Act, 1962, confiscated goods vest in the Central Government. It is the prerogative of the Central Government to decide how to deal with the confiscated goods, including the containers. Therefore, the containers could not be released to defendants 4 and 5 without the Central Government's decision.6. Compliance with Supreme Court Orders Regarding Hazardous Waste:The court noted that the Supreme Court had ordered that hazardous waste, including the goods in question, should not be released or auctioned until further orders. CCIL argued that it was already handling 500 containers with hazardous waste as per the Supreme Court's directions, and releasing the containers would adversely affect its operations. The court did not express a final opinion on this submission but highlighted its relevance.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order dated 10th May 2002, passed by the learned Single Judge, was set aside. IA No. 11658/2001 filed by defendants 4 and 5 was dismissed as not maintainable. The court concluded that CCIL had been adversely affected by the impugned order and was competent to maintain the present appeal.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found