1983 (7) TMI 49 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the notice issued to the petitioner by Customs authorities.
2. Whether the notice served on Tilakar was binding on the petitioner.
3. Interpretation of Section 229 of the Contract Act in relation to the notice served on Tilakar.

Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: The petitioner challenged the validity of the notice issued by the Customs authorities regarding the seizure of nutmegs. The petitioner argued that the notice was beyond the statutory period of limitation, and thus, the goods should be returned. However, the authorities contended that the notice served on Tilakar, a representative of the petitioner, was valid and binding.

Issue 2: The key contention raised by the petitioner was whether the notice served on Tilakar was binding on the petitioner. The petitioner argued that since the notice was not served under the relevant section of the Act, it should not be considered valid. The authorities, on the other hand, maintained that Tilakar was an agent of the petitioner, and thus, the notice served on him was binding on the petitioner.

Issue 3: The interpretation of Section 229 of the Contract Act was crucial in determining the validity of the notice served on Tilakar. The section states that any notice given to or information obtained by an agent in the course of business transacted for the principal shall have the same legal consequence as if given to the principal. The court analyzed the evidence and found that Tilakar was indeed acting as an agent of the petitioner, making the notice served on him valid and binding on the petitioner.

In the judgment, it was established that Tilakar was considered an agent of the petitioner based on various statements and evidence provided. The court concluded that the notice served on Tilakar was valid under Section 229 of the Contract Act, as it was given in the course of business transacted for the principal. Therefore, the court dismissed the writ appeal, upholding the validity of the notice and rejecting the petitioner's claim for the return of the seized goods.