9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Dismissal of petition due to lower amount cheque issued. 2. Determination of market value for garments - Non-consideration of documents by authorities. 3. Application of market price principle - Comparison with previous judgments. 4. Discrepancy in valuation of seized garments - Department's assessment versus appellant's declared price. Issue 1: The judgment begins with the dismissal of a Miscellaneous Application 88/93 filed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The applicant requested initiation of a contempt notice, but due to a lower amount cheque issued by the authorities, the petition was not pressed and subsequently dismissed. Issue 2: In the following Miscellaneous Application 129/93, the applicant sought the market value determination of garments. The Tribunal ordered the return of 4,350 garments or payment of market price if already sold. However, the authorities failed to determine the market price as of the order date, instead doing so on a later date. The appellant's documents showing prices between Rs. 25 to 32 per piece were not considered. The Tribunal emphasized that market price determination should consider applicant's documents, not solely by the Joint Pricing Committee of the Collectorate. Issue 3: The judgment discusses the application of the market price principle based on previous judgments, citing cases like Union of India v. Sambhu Nath Karmakar. The applicant argued that the Tribunal's market price determination should stand without remand due to the case's specifics, referencing a decision from 1993. The Tribunal relied on a Supreme Court decision to assert its inherent power to ensure justice between parties. Issue 4: Regarding the valuation of seized garments, the Tribunal compared the department's assessment of Rs. 2,50,000 with the appellant's declared price of Rs. 22,000. The Tribunal determined that the department's assessment represented the market price, citing previous decisions and principles of compensation for pecuniary loss. The Tribunal ordered the department to pay Rs. 90,000 to the appellant within two months as the market value of the goods on the order date. In conclusion, the judgment addresses various issues related to contempt of court, market value determination, application of legal principles from previous judgments, and discrepancy in valuation of seized goods, providing a detailed analysis and application of legal principles to ensure justice between the parties involved.
|
