9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Court stand revoked. The Petitioner shall be entitled to deal with the said goods under the consignments, in accordance with law - The claim for compensation for demurrage is rejected. The present writ petition is disposed of along with pending applications. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA For the Petitioner Through: Mr. Joy Basu, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kanak Bose, Mr. Anoop George, Advocates For the Respondents Through: Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC for R-3 Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC with Mr. Dipak Raj, Mr. Subham Kumar, Advocates for R-1 ORDER PER 1. Through the present writ petition, the Petitioner, a licensed Arms manufacturer under the Arms Rules, 2016, seeks appropriate directions against the Respondents refusal to the release of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompliance with licensing requirements, the authorities at IGI Airport refused to release the consignments, on the basis of an oral objection by Respondent No. 1 (Office of the Commissioner of Customs). They insisted that, as these consignments allegedly constituted firearms, a no-objection certificate (NOC) from the Delhi Police was required. Although the Delhi Police subsequently issued an NOC, the consignments remained withheld. 3.3 On 23rd July, 2024, counsel for Respondent No. 1 stated that the consignment was being seized on account of Office Memorandum [OM] dated 03rd August, 2022, issued by MHA. Consequently, MHA was impleaded as Respondent No. 3. 3.4 More than two years have lapsed since the consignments have reached India, however, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ledges that Respondent s challenge to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 29th August, 2024 passed in LPA No. 695/2022, before the Supreme Court has been unsuccessful. In this regard, he places reliance on order dated 06th December, 2024 passed by the Supreme Court in SLP No. 29390/2024 , which reads as follows: 1. Delay condoned. 2. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. 3. However, the Question of law, if any, is kept open. 4. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 5. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of 5. The Court has considered the submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e customs authorities if any delay be caused in inspecting the consignment as per Rule 88 (6) of the 2016 Rules. The third respondent however in the facts of the present case cannot be called upon to shoulder that liability since it had dutifully inspected the consignment within the time specified in Rule 88 (6). That authority has thus not caused any delay so as to warrant any directions being framed against it and as claimed in the writ petition. More fundamentally and bearing in mind the contentious questions which came to be raised, the facts of the present case would not warrant the grant of relief (d) as claimed in the writ petition. [Emphasis added] 8. With the above directions, the present writ petition is disposed of along with pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
