{"id":32404,"date":"1962-04-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1962-04-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-calcutta-vs-east-india-commercial-co-ltd-on-30-april-1962"},"modified":"2016-03-31T05:24:39","modified_gmt":"2016-03-30T23:54:39","slug":"collector-of-customs-calcutta-vs-east-india-commercial-co-ltd-on-30-april-1962","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-calcutta-vs-east-india-commercial-co-ltd-on-30-april-1962","title":{"rendered":"Collector Of Customs, Calcutta vs East India Commercial Co. Ltd on 30 April, 1962"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Collector Of Customs, Calcutta vs East India Commercial Co. Ltd on 30 April, 1962<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 1124, \t\t 1963 SCR Supl. (2) 563<\/div>\n
Author: K Wanchoo<\/div>\n
Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Gajendragadkar, P.B., Wanchoo, K.N., Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala, Aiyyar, T.L. Venkatarama<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nEAST INDIA COMMERCIAL CO.  LTD.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n30\/04\/1962\n\nBENCH:\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nBENCH:\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nAIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\n\nCITATION:\n 1963 AIR 1124\t\t  1963 SCR  Supl. (2) 563\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1965 SC 458\t (28)\n D\t    1967 SC1244\t (12)\n D\t    1968 SC 231\t (19)\n RF\t    1974 SC1380\t (21,30)\n RF\t    1987 SC2111\t (13)\n R\t    1990 SC  10\t (12)\n\n\nACT:\nSea Customs-Effect of confirmation of order in\tappeal-Order\nof  Collector merged into that of Central Board\t of  Revenue\n--Sea Customs Act, 1878 (8 of 1878).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  respondent imported 2,000 drums of mineral oil and\t the\nappellant  confiscated\t50  drums  and\timposed\t a  personal\npenalty.  The appeal of the respondent was dismissed by\t the\nCentral\t Board of Revenue.  The respondent filed a  petition\nunder  Art.  226 of the Constitution in\t the  Calcutta\tHigh\nCourt.\t A Full Bench of the High Court held that  the\tHigh\nCourt  had  no\tjurisdiction to issue  a  writ\tagainst\t the\nCentral Board of Revenue in view of the decision in the case\nof  Saka Venkata Subbha Rao.  However, as the Central  Board\nof Revenue had merely dismissed the appeal against the\n564\norder of the appellant, the High Court further held that  it\nhad  jurisdiction  to pass an order against  the  appellant.\nThe   appellant\t came  to  this\t Court\tafter  obtaining   a\ncertificate.\nHeld that the appellant had merged into that of the  Central\nBoard of Revenue and hence no order could be issued  against\nthe  appellant.\t  It  is only the  order  of  the  appellate\nauthority  which is operative after the appeal\tis  disposed\nof.   It is immaterial whether the appellate order  reverses\nthe  original  order,  modifies\t it  or\t confirms  it.\t The\nappellate  order  of confirmation is as\t efficacious  as  an\noperative  order  as  an  appellate  order  of\treversal  or\nmodification.\tAs the appellate authority in this case\t was\nbeyond\tthe territorial jurisdiction of the High  Court,  it\nwas  not  open\tto the High Court to issue  a  writ  to\t the\noriginal authority which was within its jurisdiction.\nElection Commission, India v. Saka Vankata Subba Rao,<\/a> [1951]\nS. C. R. 1144, A. Thangal Kunju Mudatiar v. M. Venkitachalam\nPoiti,<\/a> [1955] 2 S. C. R. 1196, Commissioner of Income-tax v.\nM\/s.  Amritlal Bhogilal & Co.<\/a> [1959] S. C. R. 713 and  Madan\nGopal  Rungta  v.  Secretary<\/a> to the  Government\t of  Orissa,\n(1962) (Supp.) 3 S.C.R. followed.\nBarkatali v. Custodian General of Evacuee Property, A. 1. R.   1954\nRaj. 214, overruled.\nJoginder    Singh   Waryam   Singh   v.\t  Director,    Rural\nRehabilitation,\t Pepsu,\t Patiala, A. 1. R.  1955  Pepsu\t 91,\nBurhanpur National Textile Workers Union v. Labour Appellate\nTribunal  of  India at Bombay, A. I. R. 1955 Nag.  148,\t and\nAzmat Ullah v. Custodian, Evacuee Property, A.I.R.<\/a> 1955\t All\n435, approved.\nState  of  U.  P. v. Mohammed Nooh,<\/a> [1958]  S.\tC.  R.\t595,\ndistinguished.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE, JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 383 of 1961.
\nAppeal from the judgment and order dated July 21  1959,\t  of
\nthe Special Bench of the Calcutta High Court in\t Matter\t No.
\n76 of 1952.\n<\/p>\n
D. R.\t  Prem\tand  R.\t L. Dhebar, for\t the  appellant\t and
\nrespondents NOS. 2 and 3.\n<\/p>\n
S.   P. Desai and B. P. Maheshwari, for respondent No. 1
\n 565<\/span>
\n1962.  April 30.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nWANCHOO,  T.-This ii an appeal on a certificate\t granted  by
\nthe  Calcutta  High Court.  The brief  facts  necessary\t for
\npresent\t purposes  are these.  The respondent  had  imported
\n2,000  drums  of  mineral oil.\tOut of\tthis  quantity,\t the
\nappellant,  the Collector of Customs, Calcutta,\t confiscated
\n50 drums by order dated September 20, 1950.  He also imposed
\na personal penalty of Rs.61,000\/on the respondent under\t the
\nSea Customs Act, No. 8 of 1878, (hereinafter referred to  as
\nthe  Act).  The respondent appealed to the Central Board  of
\nRevenue\t under\ts.  188\t of the Act,  and  this\t appeal\t was
\ndismissed  in April 1952.  Thereupon the respondent filed  a
\npetition  under\t Art. 226 of the Constitution  in  the\tHigh
\nCourt.\tWe are in the present appeal not concerned with\t the
\nmerits\tof the case put forward by the respondent,  for\t the
\nmatter\thas  not  yet been heard on the\t merits.   When\t the
\npetition  came up before a learned Single Judge\t a  question
\nwas raised as to the jurisdiction of the High Court to\thear
\nthe  petition  in  view of the decision\t of  this  Court  in
\nElection  Commission India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao.<\/a>(1)  As
\nthe learned Single Judge considered the point important,  he
\nreferred  the matter to a larger bench; and  eventually\t the
\nquestion  was considered by a Full-Bench if the High  Court.
\nThe  Full-Bench\t addressed  itself  two\t questions  in\tthat
\nconnection, namely, (i) whether any writ could issue against
\nthe  Central Board of Revenue which was a party to the\twrit
\npetition  and  which  was permanently  located\toutside\t the
\njurisdiction of the High Court, and (ii) whether if no\twrit
\ncould  issue, against the Central Board of Revenue any\twrit
\ncould  be  issued  against  the\t appellant,  which  was\t the
\noriginal  authority to pass the order under challenge,\twhen
\nthe appellate
\n(1) (1953) S.C.R. 1144,
\n566<\/span>
\nauthority (namely, the Central Board of Revenue) had  merely
\ndismissed the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
The  Full-Bench held on the first question.  that  the\tHigh
\nCourt,\thad  no\t jurisdiction to issue a  writ\tagainst\t the
\nCentral\t Board\tof Revenue in view of the Precision  in\t the
\ncase of Sake Venkata Subba Rao.(1). On the second  question,
\nit held that as the Central Board of Revenue had merely dis-
\nmissed\tthe  appeal against the order of  the  Collector  of
\nCustoms\t Calcutta, the really operative order was the  order
\nof the appellant, which was located within the\tjurisdiction
\nof the High Court, and therefore it had jurisdiction to pass
\nan  order against the Collector of Customs in spite  of\t the
\nfact  that  order  had\tbeen  taken  in\t appeal\t (which\t was
\ndismissed) to the Central Board of Revenue to which no writ,
\ncould  be issued.  The Full-Bench further directed that\t the
\npetition would be placed before the learned Single Judge for
\ndisposal  in the light of its decision or, the\tquestion  of
\njurisdiction.\tThereupon  there was an\t application  for  a
\ncertificate to appeal to this Court, which was granted;\t and
\nthat in how the matter has come up before us.
\nThe only question which 1ells for decision before us in\t the
\nsecond\tquestion  debated  in  the’  High  Court,.   namely,
\nwhatever  the High Court would have jurisdiction to issue  a
\nwrit  against the Collector of Customs Calcutta in spite  of
\nthe  fact that his order was taken in appeal to the  Central
\nBoard  of  Revenue against which the High  Court  could\t not
\nissue a writ and the appeal had been dismissed.\t There seems
\nto have been a difference of opinion amongst the High Courts
\nin  this matter.  The Rajasthan High Courts in Barkatali  v.
\nCustodian  General of Evacuee Property (1) held\t that  where
\nthe
\nA.I.R. (1904) Raj. 214.\n<\/p>\n
 567<\/span><\/p>\n
original   authority  passing  the  order  was\twithin\t the
\njurisdiction  of the High Court but the appellate  authority
\nwas not within such jurisdiction, the High Court would still
\nhave jurisdiction to issue a writ to the original authority,
\nwhere  the  appellate  authority had  merely  dismissed\t the
\nappeal\tand  the  order\t of  the  original  authority  stood
\nconfirmed without any modification whatsoever.\tOn the other
\nhand, the PEPSU High Court in Joginder Singh Waryam Singh v.
\nDirector,  Rural Rehabilitation.  Pepsu Patiala, the  Nagpur
\nHigh Court in Burhanpur, National Textile Workers Union,  v.
\nLabour-\t Appellate Tribunal of India at Bombay ( 2) and\t the
\nAllahabad  High Court in Azmat Ullah, v. Custodian,  Evacuee
\nProperty<\/a>  (3  ) held otherwise, taking the  view  that\teven
\nWhere  the  appeal was merely dismissed, the  order  of\t the
\noriginal  authority  merged in the order  of  the  appellate
\nauthority,  and\t if the appellate authority was\t beyond\t the
\nterritorial  jurisdiction of the High Court, no\t writ  could
\nissue  even to the original authority.\tIt may be  mentioned
\nthat the Rajasthan High Court had occasion to reconsider the
\nmatter after the decision of this Court in A.\t  Thangal
\nKunju Mudaliar v. M. Venkita-chalam Potti<\/a>    ( 4 ) and\theld
\nthat  in  view\tof that\t decision,  itsearlier\tdecision  in
\nBarkatali’s case (5) was no longer good law.  The High Court
\nhas however not noticed this later decision of the Rajasthan
\nHigh Court to which the learned Chief Justice who was  party
\nto  the earlier Rajasthan case was also a party.   The\tmain
\nreason which impelled the High Courts, which held otherwise,
\nwas  that the order of the original authority got merged  in
\nthe  order  of the Appellate authority when the\t appeal\t was
\ndisposed  of  and  therefore  if  the  High  Court  had\t  no
\nterritorial  jurisdiction  to  issue  a\t writ  against\t the
\nappellate authority it could not issue a writ
\n(1)  A.I.R. (1955) Pepsu 91
\n(3) A. I. R. (1955) All- 435.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  A. I. R. (1955) Nag. 148.\n<\/p>\n
(4)  1955 2 S. C. R. 1196-\n<\/p>\n
(5)  A.I.R. (1954) Raj. 214.\n<\/p>\n
568<\/span><\/p>\n
against\t the original authority, even though  the  appellate
\nauthority  had\tmerely\tdismissed  the\tappeal\twithout\t any
\nmodification of the order passed by the original authority.
\nThe  question  therefore turns on whether the order  of\t the
\noriginal  authority  becomes  merged in\t the  order  of\t the
\nappellate  authority  even  where  the\tappellate  authority
\nmerely dismisses the appeal without any modification of\t the
\norder of the original authority.  It is obvious that when an
\nappeal is made, the appellate authority can do one of  three
\nthings,\t namely, (i) it may reverse the order under  appeal,\n<\/p>\n
(ii)  it  may  modify that order, and (iii)  it\t may  merely
\ndismiss\t the appeal and thus confirm the order\twithout\t any
\nmodification.\tIt  is not disputed that in  the  first\t two
\ncases  where the order of the original authority  is  either
\nreversed  or  modified\tit is the  order  of  the  appellate
\nauthority which is the operative order and if the High Court
\nhas  no\t jurisdiction  to  issue a  writ  to  the  appellate
\nauthority it cannot issue a writ to the original  authority.
\nThe  question therefore is whether there is  any  difference
\nbetween\t these\ttwo  cases  and the  third  case  where\t the
\nappellate  authority dismisses the appeal and thus  confirms
\nthe order of the original authority.  It seems to us that on
\nprinciple it is difficult to draw a distinction between\t the
\nfirst tori kinds of orders passed by the appellate authority
\nand  the  third kind of order passed by it.   In  all  these
\nthree  cases after the appellate authority has\tdisposed  of
\nthe  appeal,  the  operative  order  is\t the  order  of\t the
\nappellate  authority  whether it has reversed  the  original
\norder or modified it or confirmed it.  In law, the appellate
\norder  of  confirmation\t is  quite  as\tefficacious  as\t  an
\noperative  order  as  an  appellate  order  of\treversal  or
\nmodification.\tTherefore,  if the  appellate  authority  is
\nbeyond\tthe  territorial jurisdiction of the High  Court  it
\nseems difficult to bold even in a case where the appellate
\n 569<\/span>
\nauthority has confirmed the order of the original  authority
\nthat  the  High\t Court\tcan issue a  writ  to  the  original
\nauthority  which may even have the effect of  setting  aside
\nthe  order of the original authority when it cannot issue  a
\nwrit  to  the appellate authority which\t has  confirmed\t the
\norder  of the original authority.  In effect, by  issuing  a
\nwrit to the original authority setting aside its order,\t the
\nHigh  Court  would  be interfering with\t the  order  of\t the
\nappellate  authority  which had confirmed the order  or\t the
\noriginal  authority  even  though  it  has  DO\t territorial
\njurisdiction  to issue any writ to the appellate  authority.
\nWe therefore feel that on principle when once an order of an
\noriginal  authority  is\t taken in appeal  to  the  appellate
\nauthority   which   is\tlocated\t  beyond   the\t territorial
\njurisdiction  of the High Court, it is the order  after\t the
\nappeal is disposed of; and as the High Court cannot issue  a
\nwrit against the appellate authority for want of territorial
\njurisdiction  it would not be open to it at issue a writ  to
\nthe  original authority which may be within its\t territorial
\njurisdiction  once the appeal is disposed of, though it\t may
\nbe  that  the appellate authority has merely  confirmed\t the
\norder of the original authority and dismissed the appeal.
\nIt is this principle, viz., that the appellate order is\t the
\noperative order after the appeal is disposed of, which is in
\nour  opinion  the basis of the rule that the decree  of\t the
\nlower court merges in the decree of the appellate court, and
\non the same principle it would not be incorrect to say\tthat
\nthe  order of the original authority is merged in the  order
\nof  the appellate authority whatsoever its  decision-whether
\nof  reversal  or modification or  mere\tconfirmation.\tThis
\nmatter\thas  been considered by this Court on  a  number  of
\noccasions  after  the decision in Saka Venkata\tSubba  Rao’s
\ncase.(1)
\n(1)  (1953) S.C.R. 1144.\n<\/p>\n
570<\/span><\/p>\n
In  A. Thangal Kunju Mudaliar’s case (1), though  the  point
\nwas  not  directly  in issue in that  case,  the  Court\t had
\noccasion  to  consider\tthe  matter (see  p.  1213)  and  it
\napproved of the decisions of the PEPSU, Nagpur and Allahabad
\nHigh  Courts, (referred to above).  Then in Commissioner  of
\nIncome-tax v. Messrs.  Amritlal Bhogilal and Company<\/a> (2),  a
\nsimilar question arose as to the merging of an order of\t the
\nincome-tax officer into the order of the Appellate Assistant
\nCommissioner passed in appeal in connection with the  powers
\nof  the Commissioner of Income-tax in revision.\t  Though  in
\nthat  case  the\t order of  registration\t by  the  Income-tax
\nofficer\t was  held not to have merged in the  order  of\t the
\nAssistant  Commissioner\t on appeal in view  of\tthe  special
\nprovisions  of\tthe Income tax Act, this Court\tobserved  as
\nfollows in that connection at p. 720 :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “,There can be no doubt that, if an appeal  is
\n\t      provided\t against  an  order  passed   by   a
\n\t      tribunal,\t  the  decision\t of  the   appellate
\n\t      authority\t is the operative decision  in\tlaw.
\n\t      If   the\tappellate  authority   modifies\t  or
\n\t      reverses\tthe decision of the tribunal, it  is
\n\t      obvious that it is the appellate decision that
\n\t      is effective and can be enforced.\t In law\t the
\n\t      position\twould be just the same even  if\t the
\n\t      appellate\t  decision   merely   confirms\t the
\n\t      decision of the tribunal.\t As a result of\t the
\n\t      confirmation or affirmable of the decision  of
\n\t      the  tribunal by the appellate  authority\t the
\n\t      original\tdecision  merges  in  the  appellate
\n\t      decision\tand  it is  the\t appellate  decision
\n\t      alone  which  subsists and  is  operative\t and
\n\t      capable of enforcement.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  matter  was considered again by this  Court,  in  Madan
\nGopal Rungta v. Secretary<\/a> to the Government of Orissa (3) in
\nconnection with an order of the
\n(1) (1955)2 S.C.R.1196.\t    12)\t (1959) S.C.R. 713,
\n(3)  (1962) (Supp.) 3 S.C.R. 966.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    571<\/span><\/p>\n
Central Government in revision under the Mineral  Concession
\nRules, 1949, framed under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation
\nand Development) Act, (No. 53 of 1948) and it was held\tthat
\nwhen  the Central Government rejected the  review.  petition
\nagainst the order of the State Government under the  Mineral
\nConcession Rules it was in effect rejecting the\t application
\nof the appellant of that case for grant of the mining  lease
\nto  him.   The\tquestion  of the  original  order  with\t the
\nappellate  order was also considered in that case though  it
\nwas  pointed out in view of r.60 of the\t Mineral  Concession
\nRules  that it is the Central Government’s order  in  review
\nwhich is the effective and final order.\t Learned counsel for
\nthe  respondent sought to distinguish Madan  Gopal  Rungla’s
\ncase  (1)  on  the ground that it was  based  mainly  on  an
\ninterpretation\tof  r. 60 of the  Mineral  Concession  Rules
\n1949,  though he did not pursue this further when s. 188  of
\nthe Sea Customs Act was pointed out to him.\n<\/p>\n
The main reliance however of the respondent both in the High
\nCourt and before us is on the decision in the State of Uttar
\nPradesh v. Mohmmed Nooh<\/a> (2).  That was a case where a public
\nservant was dismissed on April 20, 1948 before the Constitu-
\ntion  had  come into force.  His appeal from  the  order  of
\ndismissal  was dismissed in May 1949 which was\talso  before
\nthe Constitution came into force.  His revision against\t the
\norder  in the appeal was dismissed on April 22,\t 1950,\twhen
\nthe Constitution had come into force, and the question\tthat
\narose in that case was whether the dismissed public  servant
\ncould  take advantage of the provisions of the\tConstitution
\nbecause\t the  revisional  order had been  passed  after\t the
\nConstitution  came  into force.\t In that  case,\t this  Court
\ncertainly  held that the order of dismissal passed on  April
\n20,  1948 could not be said to have merged in the orders  in
\nappeal and in revision.\t It (1) (1962) (Supp.) 3 S.C.R. 906.
\n(2) (1958) S.C.R. 595.\n<\/p>\n
572<\/span><\/p>\n
was pointed out that the order of dismissal was operative of
\nits  own  strength  as from April 20, 1948  and\t the  public
\nservant\t stood dismissed as from that date and therefore  it
\nwas  a case of dismissal before the Constitution  came\tinto
\nforce  and the. public servant could not take  advantage  of
\nthe provisions of the Constitution in view of the fact\tthat
\nhis  dismissal had taken place before the  Constitution\t had
\ncome  into  force.   As\t was  pointed  out  in\tMadan  Gopal
\nRungta’s,  case(1)  Mohammad Nooh’s case (2) was  a  special
\ncase, which stands on its own facts.  The question there was
\nwhether a writ under Art. 226 could be issued in respect  of
\na dismissal which was effective from 1948.  The relief\tthat
\nwas  being  sought was against an order of  dismissal  which
\ncame into existence before the Constitution came into  force
\nand remained effective all along even after the dismissal of
\nthe  appeal  and the revision from that order.\t It  was  in
\nthose  special circumstances that this Court held  that\t the
\ndismissal  had taken place in 1948 and it could not  be\t the
\nsubject-matter\t of  consideration  under  Art.226  of\t the
\nconstitution, for that would be giving retrospective  effect
\nto  the\t Article.  The argument based on  the  principle  of
\nmerger\twas  repelled  by this Court in\t that  case  on\t two
\ngrounds, namely, (i) that the principle of merger applicable
\nto decrees of courts would not be applicable to departmental
\ntribunals,  and\t (ii)  that  the  original  order  would  be
\noperative  on  its  own strength and did  not  gain  greater
\nefficacy by the subsequent order of dismissal of the  appeal
\nor  revision.  in  effect,  this  means\t that  even  if\t the
\nprinciple of merger were applicable to an order of dismissed
\nlike  the  one in Mohammad Nooh’s case, (2) the\t fact  would
\nstill remain that the dismissal was before the\tConstitution
\ncame  into force and therefore the person dismiss could\t not
\ntake advantage of the provisions of the Constitution, so
\n(1) (1962)(Supp.)3 S.C.R.906.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t   (2) (1958) S.C.R. 595.\n<\/p>\n
573<\/span><\/p>\n
far  as\t that dismissal was concerned.\tThat  case  was\t not
\nconcerned  with\t the territorial jurisdiction  of  the\tHigh
\nCourt\twhere\tthe  original  authority  is   within\tsuch
\nterritorial  jurisdiction while the appellate  authority  is
\nnot and must therefore be confined to the special facts with
\nwhich  it was dealing.\tWe have therefore no  hesitation  in
\nholding\t consistently with the view taken by this  Court  in
\nMudaliar’s  case  (1)  as  well\t as  in\t Messrs.    Amritlal
\nBhogilat’s (2) that the order of the origin%] authority must
\nbe  held  to  have  merged in the  order  of  the  appellate
\nauthority  in  a case like the present and it  is  only\t the
\norder  of the appellate authority which is  operative  after
\nthe  appeal  is disposed of.  Therefore,  if  the  appellate
\nauthority is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the High
\nCourt  it  would not be open to it to issue a  writ  to\t the
\noriginal autbority which is within its jurisdiction so\tlong
\nas  it can not issue a writ to the appellate authority.\t  It
\nis not in dispute in this case that no writ could be  issued
\nto the appellate authority and in the circumstances the High
\nCourt  could issue no writ even to the\toriginal  authority.
\nWe  therefore allow the appeal, set aside the order  of\t the
\nHigh Court and dismiss the writ petition with costs.
\nAppeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
(1) (1955) 2 S.C.R. 1196.\n<\/p>\n
(2) (1959) S.C.R. 713.\n<\/p>\n
574<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Collector Of Customs, Calcutta vs East India Commercial Co. Ltd on 30 April, 1962 Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 1124, 1963 SCR Supl. (2) 563 Author: K Wanchoo Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Gajendragadkar, P.B., Wanchoo, K.N., Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala, Aiyyar, T.L. Venkatarama PETITIONER: COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA Vs. RESPONDENT: EAST INDIA COMMERCIAL […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-32404","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCollector Of Customs, Calcutta vs East India Commercial Co. Ltd on 30 April, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-calcutta-vs-east-india-commercial-co-ltd-on-30-april-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Collector Of Customs, Calcutta vs East India Commercial Co. Ltd on 30 April, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-calcutta-vs-east-india-commercial-co-ltd-on-30-april-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1962-04-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-30T23:54:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-customs-calcutta-vs-east-india-commercial-co-ltd-on-30-april-1962#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-customs-calcutta-vs-east-india-commercial-co-ltd-on-30-april-1962\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Collector Of Customs, Calcutta vs East India Commercial Co. Ltd on 30 April, 1962\",\"datePublished\":\"1962-04-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-30T23:54:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-customs-calcutta-vs-east-india-commercial-co-ltd-on-30-april-1962\"},\"wordCount\":2863,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-customs-calcutta-vs-east-india-commercial-co-ltd-on-30-april-1962#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-customs-calcutta-vs-east-india-commercial-co-ltd-on-30-april-1962\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-customs-calcutta-vs-east-india-commercial-co-ltd-on-30-april-1962\",\"name\":\"Collector Of Customs, Calcutta vs East India Commercial Co. Ltd on 30 April, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1962-04-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-30T23:54:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-customs-calcutta-vs-east-india-commercial-co-ltd-on-30-april-1962#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-customs-calcutta-vs-east-india-commercial-co-ltd-on-30-april-1962\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-customs-calcutta-vs-east-india-commercial-co-ltd-on-30-april-1962#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Collector Of Customs, Calcutta vs East India Commercial Co. Ltd on 30 April, 1962\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Collector Of Customs, Calcutta vs East India Commercial Co. Ltd on 30 April, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-calcutta-vs-east-india-commercial-co-ltd-on-30-april-1962","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Collector Of Customs, Calcutta vs East India Commercial Co. Ltd on 30 April, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-calcutta-vs-east-india-commercial-co-ltd-on-30-april-1962","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1962-04-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-30T23:54:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-calcutta-vs-east-india-commercial-co-ltd-on-30-april-1962#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-calcutta-vs-east-india-commercial-co-ltd-on-30-april-1962"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Collector Of Customs, Calcutta vs East India Commercial Co. Ltd on 30 April, 1962","datePublished":"1962-04-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-30T23:54:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-calcutta-vs-east-india-commercial-co-ltd-on-30-april-1962"},"wordCount":2863,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-calcutta-vs-east-india-commercial-co-ltd-on-30-april-1962#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-calcutta-vs-east-india-commercial-co-ltd-on-30-april-1962","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-calcutta-vs-east-india-commercial-co-ltd-on-30-april-1962","name":"Collector Of Customs, Calcutta vs East India Commercial Co. Ltd on 30 April, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1962-04-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-30T23:54:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-calcutta-vs-east-india-commercial-co-ltd-on-30-april-1962#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-calcutta-vs-east-india-commercial-co-ltd-on-30-april-1962"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-customs-calcutta-vs-east-india-commercial-co-ltd-on-30-april-1962#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Collector Of Customs, Calcutta vs East India Commercial Co. Ltd on 30 April, 1962"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32404","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=32404"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32404\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32404"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=32404"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32404"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}