https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190277 The Court explained that liaison arrangements through a maritime board, where seamen presented themselves but were selected by shipowners or their captains, did not amount to the "supply" of seamen under section 25 of the Indian Merchant Shipping Act. It further held that collecting Re. 1 as a contribution toward office expenses, rather than as payment for procuring employment, did not constitute remuneration for providing employment under section 26. On revisional interference, the Court stated that revision after acquittal is confined to exceptional cases of manifest illegality or gross miscarriage of justice, and is not meant to reappreciate evidence. The retrial direction was therefore improper. en-us Fri, 02 Mar 1951 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Feb 2017 16:51:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190277 The Court explained that liaison arrangements through a maritime board, where seamen presented themselves but were selected by shipowners or their captains, did not amount to the "supply" of seamen under section 25 of the Indian Merchant Shipping Act. It further held that collecting Re. 1 as a contribution toward office expenses, rather than as payment for procuring employment, did not constitute remuneration for providing employment under section 26. On revisional interference, the Court stated that revision after acquittal is confined to exceptional cases of manifest illegality or gross miscarriage of justice, and is not meant to reappreciate evidence. The retrial direction was therefore improper. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 02 Mar 1951 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190277