9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (10) TMI 434X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty. Soon after receiving the show-cause notice, A. Kumar filed Writ Petition (C) No. 2 of 1983 in this Court challenging its validity. 3.Another Writ Petition (C) No. 8168 of 1982 was also filed by A. Kumar in this Court for a declaration that the "scale of rates" prescribed by the Madras Port Trust are unconstitutional and to restrain the Port Trust from collecting the charges in accordance with the said scale of rates and also for issuance of detention certificate. 4.A. Kumar also filed Writ Petition (C) No. 2689 of 1982 in the Delhi High Court challenging the order dated June 19, 1982 passed under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act proposing to seize the goods lying with the customs authorities at Madras. The writ petition was dismissed on August 16, 1982 against which he preferred Civil Appeal No. 1693 of 1984. 5.A. Kumar filed yet another writ petition in the Delhi High Court being Writ Petition (C) No. 1812 of 1982 questioning the rate of customs duty and valuation of goods imported by him. This writ petition was also dismissed by the Delhi High Court against which Civil Appeal No. 1694 of 1984 has been preferred by him. 6.It appears that a number of demands and p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is employers, Vinod Kumar Didwania and Deen Dayal Didwania. He denied that he is the proprietor of the concern, Indian Steel Corporation. He denied any knowledge of certain accounts maintained in his name in Lakshmi Vilas Bank. He denied signing any document in connection with import of any goods. In short, he denied that he has anything to do with the said concern or with the said import or with the said goods. According to him, everything was done by Vinod Kumar Didwania and Deen Dayal Didwania using his name. The second statement is dated December 2, 1983 recorded at the Income Tax Office, Madras. In this statement also, he denied being the proprietor of the said concern. He disowned any connection with the import of the said goods and stated that he has no claim to the said goods. The third statement is contained in his affidavit dated February 24, 1984 in which again he repeated the very same averments. He denied engaging any advocate and stated that whatever affidavits he had signed were all at the instance of his employers, Didwanias. He stated that he was merely a helpless tool in the hands of Didwanias and that they did everything in his name and also resorted to forgeries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e do not think that any of the claims are acceptable. Sri N.D. Garg could not tell us whether the goods in question were taxable at sale point or purchase point. He could not also bring to our notice the terms and conditions of the auction sale. He could not satisfy us why the burden of sales tax could not be passed on to him. In the circumstances, his claim for reimbursement of sales tax is rejected. His claim for interest on earnest money is equally unsustainable in law. There is no basis for the said claim. It is also not explained in what circumstances he was made to pay the demurrage charges. The claim of the said party [Madras Agencies] is accordingly rejected. 13.So far as the claim of Lakshmi Vilas Bank [a Scheduled Bank] is concerned, we see no reason to pass any order on the said claim. The Bank has already filed a suit and it has to work out its rights in that suit. There are also charges of collusion and fraud against the officials of the Bank upon which allegations also we express no opinion. We express no opinion on the maintainability or merits of the Bank's claim either. It is for the Bank to work out its rights in that suit. 14.So far as the claim of Madras Por ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... — Supereme Court Case Ref : Your Fax dt. 8.10.1996 A current account and L.C. were opened on 03.02.1982 on the mistaken identity and A. Kumar is Anil Kumar, Brother of Vinodkumar Didwania. The account was introduced by Vinodkumar Didwania who was our customer at that time. The L.C. was guaranteed by Vinodkumar Didwania and Deendayal Didwania. The goods received under L.C. were also securities for the transaction. The account was open and L.C. was extended in normal course and the only mistake which came to know after a long period regarding identity of the person. The Bank was not aware that A. Kumar was a different person with the Ceylon citizenship. This was found out after a long time when I.T. authorities took action. At that time the guarantors came to the branch one day and misusing the confidence of the bank had in them, took the file on the pretext of verifying and cancelled the guarantee documents. The bank acted only bona fide and the bank was not aware of the fraud played by Didwanias. The bank has in the end to reply upon the security of the goods imported. From the sale of the goods imported a substantial amount has been realised and the same has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
