Shakti Metal Industries Vs the Union of India Uoi and ors - Citation 360079 - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shakti Metal Industries Vs the Union of India Uoi and ors - Citation 360079 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '360079',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 1097 of 1988 in Writ Petition No. 2156 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Shakti Metal Industries',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shakti Metal Industries Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Judgment not erroneous if petition worded loosely. Party to go in appeal or writ. - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 41: [ Swatanter Kumar, CJ, Smt Ranjana Desai & D.B. Bhosale, JJ] Arrest of accused - Held, A Police Officer or a person empowered to arrest may arrest a person without intervention of the Court subject to the limitations specified under the provisions of the Code. The provisions of Section 41 of the Code provides for arrest by a Police Officer without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant. A distinct and different power under Section 44 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to arrest or order any person to arrest the offender. Under Section 44 of the Code, that power is vested in the Court of the Magistrate when an offence is committed in his presence. If the Legislature has taken care of providing such specific power under Section 44 of the Code, then there could be no reason for such a power not to be specified under the provisions of Chapter XII of the Code. In terms of Section 41, a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant or order from the Magistrate for any or all of the conditions specified in that provision. Language of this provision clearly suggested that the Police Officer can arrest a person without an order from the Magistrate. Thus, there appears to be no reason why on the strength of Section 156(3) of the Code, any restriction should be read into the power specifically granted by the legislature to the Police Officer. Of course, freedom  of investigation is the essence of these provisions but  in order to suppress the mischief it is sufficiently indicated under different provisions of the Code that the arresting officer should exercise his power or discretion judiciously and should be free of motive. Some kind of inbuilt safeguard is available to the accused in the cases where the Magistrate directs investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 438 of the Code by approaching the Court of Session or the High Court for such relief. Thus, during the course of investigation of a criminal case, an accused is not  remediless and that would further buttress the above view. [Jagannath Singh v Dr. Ajay Upadyay & anr 2006 Cri LJ 4274; 2006 (5) AIR Bom R held per incuriam].',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1989-01-12',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.K. Desai, Ag. C.J. and ;H.H. Kantharia, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.K. Desai, Ag. C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this appeal, the order of the learned single Judge dated 20th April, 1988 stands impugned. As we understand this order the learned single Judge has formed a view that the petitioners' have not paid the countervailing duty on the entire raw material used by the petitioners. In view of the rather loose phraseology employed in the petition particularly in para 9(k), we cannot say that the learned Judge is in any error. Even otherwise it appears from Exhibit 'F' that only certain' information is being sought from the petitioners. We are sure that if the petitioners show and demonstrate that the necessary duty has been paid on the entire raw material used by the petitioners either imported by them or' brought from the market, they will be entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. If and when any adverse order is passed against them it would be then open to the petitioners to carry the matter in appeal or to impugn those orders by appropriate writ proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In this view of the matter, the appeal stands dismissed but with no order as to costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, Notice of Motion No. 2497 of 1988 does not survive and the same will also stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs of the Motion also.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1989(22)LC640(Bombay)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Union of India (Uoi) and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Excise',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shakti-metal-industries-vs-union-india',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '360079',
		(int) 1 => 'shakti-metal-industries-vs-union-india'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shakti Metal Industries Vs the Union of India Uoi and ors - Citation 360079 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '360079',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 1097 of 1988 in Writ Petition No. 2156 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Shakti Metal Industries',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shakti Metal Industries Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Judgment not erroneous if petition worded loosely. Party to go in appeal or writ. - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 41: [ Swatanter Kumar, CJ, Smt Ranjana Desai & D.B. Bhosale, JJ] Arrest of accused - Held, A Police Officer or a person empowered to arrest may arrest a person without intervention of the Court subject to the limitations specified under the provisions of the Code. The provisions of Section 41 of the Code provides for arrest by a Police Officer without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant. A distinct and different power under Section 44 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to arrest or order any person to arrest the offender. Under Section 44 of the Code, that power is vested in the Court of the Magistrate when an offence is committed in his presence. If the Legislature has taken care of providing such specific power under Section 44 of the Code, then there could be no reason for such a power not to be specified under the provisions of Chapter XII of the Code. In terms of Section 41, a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant or order from the Magistrate for any or all of the conditions specified in that provision. Language of this provision clearly suggested that the Police Officer can arrest a person without an order from the Magistrate. Thus, there appears to be no reason why on the strength of Section 156(3) of the Code, any restriction should be read into the power specifically granted by the legislature to the Police Officer. Of course, freedom  of investigation is the essence of these provisions but  in order to suppress the mischief it is sufficiently indicated under different provisions of the Code that the arresting officer should exercise his power or discretion judiciously and should be free of motive. Some kind of inbuilt safeguard is available to the accused in the cases where the Magistrate directs investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 438 of the Code by approaching the Court of Session or the High Court for such relief. Thus, during the course of investigation of a criminal case, an accused is not  remediless and that would further buttress the above view. [Jagannath Singh v Dr. Ajay Upadyay & anr 2006 Cri LJ 4274; 2006 (5) AIR Bom R held per incuriam].',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1989-01-12',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.K. Desai, Ag. C.J. and ;H.H. Kantharia, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.K. Desai, Ag. C.J.</p><p>1. In this appeal, the order of the learned single Judge dated 20th April, 1988 stands impugned. As we understand this order the learned single Judge has formed a view that the petitioners' have not paid the countervailing duty on the entire raw material used by the petitioners. In view of the rather loose phraseology employed in the petition particularly in para 9(k), we cannot say that the learned Judge is in any error. Even otherwise it appears from Exhibit 'F' that only certain' information is being sought from the petitioners. We are sure that if the petitioners show and demonstrate that the necessary duty has been paid on the entire raw material used by the petitioners either imported by them or' brought from the market, they will be entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. If and when any adverse order is passed against them it would be then open to the petitioners to carry the matter in appeal or to impugn those orders by appropriate writ proceedings.</p><p>2. In this view of the matter, the appeal stands dismissed but with no order as to costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, Notice of Motion No. 2497 of 1988 does not survive and the same will also stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs of the Motion also.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1989(22)LC640(Bombay)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Union of India (Uoi) and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Excise',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shakti-metal-industries-vs-union-india'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '360079',
	(int) 1 => 'shakti-metal-industries-vs-union-india'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/360079/shakti-metal-industries-vs-union-india'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shakti Metal Industries Vs the Union of India Uoi and ors - Citation 360079 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '360079',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 1097 of 1988 in Writ Petition No. 2156 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Shakti Metal Industries',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shakti Metal Industries Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Judgment not erroneous if petition worded loosely. Party to go in appeal or writ. - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 41: [ Swatanter Kumar, CJ, Smt Ranjana Desai & D.B. Bhosale, JJ] Arrest of accused - Held, A Police Officer or a person empowered to arrest may arrest a person without intervention of the Court subject to the limitations specified under the provisions of the Code. The provisions of Section 41 of the Code provides for arrest by a Police Officer without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant. A distinct and different power under Section 44 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to arrest or order any person to arrest the offender. Under Section 44 of the Code, that power is vested in the Court of the Magistrate when an offence is committed in his presence. If the Legislature has taken care of providing such specific power under Section 44 of the Code, then there could be no reason for such a power not to be specified under the provisions of Chapter XII of the Code. In terms of Section 41, a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant or order from the Magistrate for any or all of the conditions specified in that provision. Language of this provision clearly suggested that the Police Officer can arrest a person without an order from the Magistrate. Thus, there appears to be no reason why on the strength of Section 156(3) of the Code, any restriction should be read into the power specifically granted by the legislature to the Police Officer. Of course, freedom  of investigation is the essence of these provisions but  in order to suppress the mischief it is sufficiently indicated under different provisions of the Code that the arresting officer should exercise his power or discretion judiciously and should be free of motive. Some kind of inbuilt safeguard is available to the accused in the cases where the Magistrate directs investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 438 of the Code by approaching the Court of Session or the High Court for such relief. Thus, during the course of investigation of a criminal case, an accused is not  remediless and that would further buttress the above view. [Jagannath Singh v Dr. Ajay Upadyay & anr 2006 Cri LJ 4274; 2006 (5) AIR Bom R held per incuriam].',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1989-01-12',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.K. Desai, Ag. C.J. and ;H.H. Kantharia, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.K. Desai, Ag. C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this appeal, the order of the learned single Judge dated 20th April, 1988 stands impugned. As we understand this order the learned single Judge has formed a view that the petitioners' have not paid the countervailing duty on the entire raw material used by the petitioners. In view of the rather loose phraseology employed in the petition particularly in para 9(k), we cannot say that the learned Judge is in any error. Even otherwise it appears from Exhibit 'F' that only certain' information is being sought from the petitioners. We are sure that if the petitioners show and demonstrate that the necessary duty has been paid on the entire raw material used by the petitioners either imported by them or' brought from the market, they will be entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. If and when any adverse order is passed against them it would be then open to the petitioners to carry the matter in appeal or to impugn those orders by appropriate writ proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In this view of the matter, the appeal stands dismissed but with no order as to costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, Notice of Motion No. 2497 of 1988 does not survive and the same will also stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs of the Motion also.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1989(22)LC640(Bombay)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Union of India (Uoi) and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Excise',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shakti-metal-industries-vs-union-india',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '360079',
		(int) 1 => 'shakti-metal-industries-vs-union-india'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shakti Metal Industries Vs the Union of India Uoi and ors - Citation 360079 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '360079',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 1097 of 1988 in Writ Petition No. 2156 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Shakti Metal Industries',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shakti Metal Industries Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Judgment not erroneous if petition worded loosely. Party to go in appeal or writ. - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 41: [ Swatanter Kumar, CJ, Smt Ranjana Desai & D.B. Bhosale, JJ] Arrest of accused - Held, A Police Officer or a person empowered to arrest may arrest a person without intervention of the Court subject to the limitations specified under the provisions of the Code. The provisions of Section 41 of the Code provides for arrest by a Police Officer without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant. A distinct and different power under Section 44 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to arrest or order any person to arrest the offender. Under Section 44 of the Code, that power is vested in the Court of the Magistrate when an offence is committed in his presence. If the Legislature has taken care of providing such specific power under Section 44 of the Code, then there could be no reason for such a power not to be specified under the provisions of Chapter XII of the Code. In terms of Section 41, a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant or order from the Magistrate for any or all of the conditions specified in that provision. Language of this provision clearly suggested that the Police Officer can arrest a person without an order from the Magistrate. Thus, there appears to be no reason why on the strength of Section 156(3) of the Code, any restriction should be read into the power specifically granted by the legislature to the Police Officer. Of course, freedom  of investigation is the essence of these provisions but  in order to suppress the mischief it is sufficiently indicated under different provisions of the Code that the arresting officer should exercise his power or discretion judiciously and should be free of motive. Some kind of inbuilt safeguard is available to the accused in the cases where the Magistrate directs investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 438 of the Code by approaching the Court of Session or the High Court for such relief. Thus, during the course of investigation of a criminal case, an accused is not  remediless and that would further buttress the above view. [Jagannath Singh v Dr. Ajay Upadyay & anr 2006 Cri LJ 4274; 2006 (5) AIR Bom R held per incuriam].',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1989-01-12',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.K. Desai, Ag. C.J. and ;H.H. Kantharia, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.K. Desai, Ag. C.J.</p><p>1. In this appeal, the order of the learned single Judge dated 20th April, 1988 stands impugned. As we understand this order the learned single Judge has formed a view that the petitioners' have not paid the countervailing duty on the entire raw material used by the petitioners. In view of the rather loose phraseology employed in the petition particularly in para 9(k), we cannot say that the learned Judge is in any error. Even otherwise it appears from Exhibit 'F' that only certain' information is being sought from the petitioners. We are sure that if the petitioners show and demonstrate that the necessary duty has been paid on the entire raw material used by the petitioners either imported by them or' brought from the market, they will be entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. If and when any adverse order is passed against them it would be then open to the petitioners to carry the matter in appeal or to impugn those orders by appropriate writ proceedings.</p><p>2. In this view of the matter, the appeal stands dismissed but with no order as to costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, Notice of Motion No. 2497 of 1988 does not survive and the same will also stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs of the Motion also.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1989(22)LC640(Bombay)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Union of India (Uoi) and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Excise',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shakti-metal-industries-vs-union-india'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '360079',
	(int) 1 => 'shakti-metal-industries-vs-union-india'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/360079/shakti-metal-industries-vs-union-india'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

judgment not erroneous if petition worded loosely. party to go in appeal or writ. - code of criminal procedure, 1973 [c.a. no. 2/1974]. section 41: [ swatanter kumar, cj, smt ranjana desai & d.b. bhosale, jj] arrest of accused - held, a police officer or a person empowered to arrest may arrest a person without intervention of the court subject to the limitations specified under the provisions of the code. the provisions of section 41 of the code provides for arrest by a police officer without an order from a magistrate and without a warrant. a distinct and different power under section 44 of the code empowers the magistrate to arrest or order any person to arrest the offender. under section 44 of the code, that power is vested in the court of the magistrate when an offence is committed in.....

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shakti Metal Industries Vs the Union of India Uoi and ors - Citation 360079 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '360079',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 1097 of 1988 in Writ Petition No. 2156 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Shakti Metal Industries',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shakti Metal Industries Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Judgment not erroneous if petition worded loosely. Party to go in appeal or writ. - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 41: [ Swatanter Kumar, CJ, Smt Ranjana Desai & D.B. Bhosale, JJ] Arrest of accused - Held, A Police Officer or a person empowered to arrest may arrest a person without intervention of the Court subject to the limitations specified under the provisions of the Code. The provisions of Section 41 of the Code provides for arrest by a Police Officer without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant. A distinct and different power under Section 44 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to arrest or order any person to arrest the offender. Under Section 44 of the Code, that power is vested in the Court of the Magistrate when an offence is committed in his presence. If the Legislature has taken care of providing such specific power under Section 44 of the Code, then there could be no reason for such a power not to be specified under the provisions of Chapter XII of the Code. In terms of Section 41, a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant or order from the Magistrate for any or all of the conditions specified in that provision. Language of this provision clearly suggested that the Police Officer can arrest a person without an order from the Magistrate. Thus, there appears to be no reason why on the strength of Section 156(3) of the Code, any restriction should be read into the power specifically granted by the legislature to the Police Officer. Of course, freedom  of investigation is the essence of these provisions but  in order to suppress the mischief it is sufficiently indicated under different provisions of the Code that the arresting officer should exercise his power or discretion judiciously and should be free of motive. Some kind of inbuilt safeguard is available to the accused in the cases where the Magistrate directs investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 438 of the Code by approaching the Court of Session or the High Court for such relief. Thus, during the course of investigation of a criminal case, an accused is not  remediless and that would further buttress the above view. [Jagannath Singh v Dr. Ajay Upadyay & anr 2006 Cri LJ 4274; 2006 (5) AIR Bom R held per incuriam].',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1989-01-12',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.K. Desai, Ag. C.J. and ;H.H. Kantharia, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.K. Desai, Ag. C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this appeal, the order of the learned single Judge dated 20th April, 1988 stands impugned. As we understand this order the learned single Judge has formed a view that the petitioners' have not paid the countervailing duty on the entire raw material used by the petitioners. In view of the rather loose phraseology employed in the petition particularly in para 9(k), we cannot say that the learned Judge is in any error. Even otherwise it appears from Exhibit 'F' that only certain' information is being sought from the petitioners. We are sure that if the petitioners show and demonstrate that the necessary duty has been paid on the entire raw material used by the petitioners either imported by them or' brought from the market, they will be entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. If and when any adverse order is passed against them it would be then open to the petitioners to carry the matter in appeal or to impugn those orders by appropriate writ proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In this view of the matter, the appeal stands dismissed but with no order as to costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, Notice of Motion No. 2497 of 1988 does not survive and the same will also stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs of the Motion also.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1989(22)LC640(Bombay)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Union of India (Uoi) and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Excise',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shakti-metal-industries-vs-union-india',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '360079',
		(int) 1 => 'shakti-metal-industries-vs-union-india'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shakti Metal Industries Vs the Union of India Uoi and ors - Citation 360079 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '360079',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 1097 of 1988 in Writ Petition No. 2156 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Shakti Metal Industries',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shakti Metal Industries Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Judgment not erroneous if petition worded loosely. Party to go in appeal or writ. - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 41: [ Swatanter Kumar, CJ, Smt Ranjana Desai & D.B. Bhosale, JJ] Arrest of accused - Held, A Police Officer or a person empowered to arrest may arrest a person without intervention of the Court subject to the limitations specified under the provisions of the Code. The provisions of Section 41 of the Code provides for arrest by a Police Officer without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant. A distinct and different power under Section 44 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to arrest or order any person to arrest the offender. Under Section 44 of the Code, that power is vested in the Court of the Magistrate when an offence is committed in his presence. If the Legislature has taken care of providing such specific power under Section 44 of the Code, then there could be no reason for such a power not to be specified under the provisions of Chapter XII of the Code. In terms of Section 41, a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant or order from the Magistrate for any or all of the conditions specified in that provision. Language of this provision clearly suggested that the Police Officer can arrest a person without an order from the Magistrate. Thus, there appears to be no reason why on the strength of Section 156(3) of the Code, any restriction should be read into the power specifically granted by the legislature to the Police Officer. Of course, freedom  of investigation is the essence of these provisions but  in order to suppress the mischief it is sufficiently indicated under different provisions of the Code that the arresting officer should exercise his power or discretion judiciously and should be free of motive. Some kind of inbuilt safeguard is available to the accused in the cases where the Magistrate directs investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 438 of the Code by approaching the Court of Session or the High Court for such relief. Thus, during the course of investigation of a criminal case, an accused is not  remediless and that would further buttress the above view. [Jagannath Singh v Dr. Ajay Upadyay & anr 2006 Cri LJ 4274; 2006 (5) AIR Bom R held per incuriam].',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1989-01-12',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.K. Desai, Ag. C.J. and ;H.H. Kantharia, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.K. Desai, Ag. C.J.</p><p>1. In this appeal, the order of the learned single Judge dated 20th April, 1988 stands impugned. As we understand this order the learned single Judge has formed a view that the petitioners' have not paid the countervailing duty on the entire raw material used by the petitioners. In view of the rather loose phraseology employed in the petition particularly in para 9(k), we cannot say that the learned Judge is in any error. Even otherwise it appears from Exhibit 'F' that only certain' information is being sought from the petitioners. We are sure that if the petitioners show and demonstrate that the necessary duty has been paid on the entire raw material used by the petitioners either imported by them or' brought from the market, they will be entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. If and when any adverse order is passed against them it would be then open to the petitioners to carry the matter in appeal or to impugn those orders by appropriate writ proceedings.</p><p>2. In this view of the matter, the appeal stands dismissed but with no order as to costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, Notice of Motion No. 2497 of 1988 does not survive and the same will also stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs of the Motion also.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1989(22)LC640(Bombay)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Union of India (Uoi) and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Excise',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shakti-metal-industries-vs-union-india'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '360079',
	(int) 1 => 'shakti-metal-industries-vs-union-india'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/360079/shakti-metal-industries-vs-union-india'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shakti Metal Industries Vs the Union of India Uoi and ors - Citation 360079 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '360079',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 1097 of 1988 in Writ Petition No. 2156 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Shakti Metal Industries',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shakti Metal Industries Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Judgment not erroneous if petition worded loosely. Party to go in appeal or writ. - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 41: [ Swatanter Kumar, CJ, Smt Ranjana Desai & D.B. Bhosale, JJ] Arrest of accused - Held, A Police Officer or a person empowered to arrest may arrest a person without intervention of the Court subject to the limitations specified under the provisions of the Code. The provisions of Section 41 of the Code provides for arrest by a Police Officer without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant. A distinct and different power under Section 44 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to arrest or order any person to arrest the offender. Under Section 44 of the Code, that power is vested in the Court of the Magistrate when an offence is committed in his presence. If the Legislature has taken care of providing such specific power under Section 44 of the Code, then there could be no reason for such a power not to be specified under the provisions of Chapter XII of the Code. In terms of Section 41, a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant or order from the Magistrate for any or all of the conditions specified in that provision. Language of this provision clearly suggested that the Police Officer can arrest a person without an order from the Magistrate. Thus, there appears to be no reason why on the strength of Section 156(3) of the Code, any restriction should be read into the power specifically granted by the legislature to the Police Officer. Of course, freedom  of investigation is the essence of these provisions but  in order to suppress the mischief it is sufficiently indicated under different provisions of the Code that the arresting officer should exercise his power or discretion judiciously and should be free of motive. Some kind of inbuilt safeguard is available to the accused in the cases where the Magistrate directs investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 438 of the Code by approaching the Court of Session or the High Court for such relief. Thus, during the course of investigation of a criminal case, an accused is not  remediless and that would further buttress the above view. [Jagannath Singh v Dr. Ajay Upadyay & anr 2006 Cri LJ 4274; 2006 (5) AIR Bom R held per incuriam].',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1989-01-12',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.K. Desai, Ag. C.J. and ;H.H. Kantharia, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.K. Desai, Ag. C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this appeal, the order of the learned single Judge dated 20th April, 1988 stands impugned. As we understand this order the learned single Judge has formed a view that the petitioners' have not paid the countervailing duty on the entire raw material used by the petitioners. In view of the rather loose phraseology employed in the petition particularly in para 9(k), we cannot say that the learned Judge is in any error. Even otherwise it appears from Exhibit 'F' that only certain' information is being sought from the petitioners. We are sure that if the petitioners show and demonstrate that the necessary duty has been paid on the entire raw material used by the petitioners either imported by them or' brought from the market, they will be entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. If and when any adverse order is passed against them it would be then open to the petitioners to carry the matter in appeal or to impugn those orders by appropriate writ proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In this view of the matter, the appeal stands dismissed but with no order as to costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, Notice of Motion No. 2497 of 1988 does not survive and the same will also stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs of the Motion also.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1989(22)LC640(Bombay)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Union of India (Uoi) and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Excise',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shakti-metal-industries-vs-union-india',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '360079',
		(int) 1 => 'shakti-metal-industries-vs-union-india'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shakti Metal Industries Vs the Union of India Uoi and ors - Citation 360079 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '360079',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 1097 of 1988 in Writ Petition No. 2156 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Shakti Metal Industries',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shakti Metal Industries Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Judgment not erroneous if petition worded loosely. Party to go in appeal or writ. - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 41: [ Swatanter Kumar, CJ, Smt Ranjana Desai & D.B. Bhosale, JJ] Arrest of accused - Held, A Police Officer or a person empowered to arrest may arrest a person without intervention of the Court subject to the limitations specified under the provisions of the Code. The provisions of Section 41 of the Code provides for arrest by a Police Officer without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant. A distinct and different power under Section 44 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to arrest or order any person to arrest the offender. Under Section 44 of the Code, that power is vested in the Court of the Magistrate when an offence is committed in his presence. If the Legislature has taken care of providing such specific power under Section 44 of the Code, then there could be no reason for such a power not to be specified under the provisions of Chapter XII of the Code. In terms of Section 41, a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant or order from the Magistrate for any or all of the conditions specified in that provision. Language of this provision clearly suggested that the Police Officer can arrest a person without an order from the Magistrate. Thus, there appears to be no reason why on the strength of Section 156(3) of the Code, any restriction should be read into the power specifically granted by the legislature to the Police Officer. Of course, freedom  of investigation is the essence of these provisions but  in order to suppress the mischief it is sufficiently indicated under different provisions of the Code that the arresting officer should exercise his power or discretion judiciously and should be free of motive. Some kind of inbuilt safeguard is available to the accused in the cases where the Magistrate directs investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 438 of the Code by approaching the Court of Session or the High Court for such relief. Thus, during the course of investigation of a criminal case, an accused is not  remediless and that would further buttress the above view. [Jagannath Singh v Dr. Ajay Upadyay & anr 2006 Cri LJ 4274; 2006 (5) AIR Bom R held per incuriam].',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1989-01-12',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.K. Desai, Ag. C.J. and ;H.H. Kantharia, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.K. Desai, Ag. C.J.</p><p>1. In this appeal, the order of the learned single Judge dated 20th April, 1988 stands impugned. As we understand this order the learned single Judge has formed a view that the petitioners' have not paid the countervailing duty on the entire raw material used by the petitioners. In view of the rather loose phraseology employed in the petition particularly in para 9(k), we cannot say that the learned Judge is in any error. Even otherwise it appears from Exhibit 'F' that only certain' information is being sought from the petitioners. We are sure that if the petitioners show and demonstrate that the necessary duty has been paid on the entire raw material used by the petitioners either imported by them or' brought from the market, they will be entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. If and when any adverse order is passed against them it would be then open to the petitioners to carry the matter in appeal or to impugn those orders by appropriate writ proceedings.</p><p>2. In this view of the matter, the appeal stands dismissed but with no order as to costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, Notice of Motion No. 2497 of 1988 does not survive and the same will also stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs of the Motion also.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1989(22)LC640(Bombay)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Union of India (Uoi) and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Excise',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shakti-metal-industries-vs-union-india'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '360079',
	(int) 1 => 'shakti-metal-industries-vs-union-india'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/360079/shakti-metal-industries-vs-union-india'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

s.k. desai, ag. c.j.1. in this appeal, the order of the learned single judge dated 20th april, 1988 stands impugned. as we understand this order the learned single judge has formed a view that the petitioners' have not paid the countervailing duty on the entire raw material used by the petitioners. in view of the rather loose phraseology employed in the petition particularly in para 9(k), we cannot say that the learned judge is in any error. even otherwise it appears from exhibit 'f' that only certain' information is being sought from the petitioners. we are sure that if the petitioners show and demonstrate that the necessary duty has been paid on the entire raw material used by the petitioners either imported by them or' brought from the market, they will be entitled to the benefit of.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shakti Metal Industries Vs the Union of India Uoi and ors - Citation 360079 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '360079',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 1097 of 1988 in Writ Petition No. 2156 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Shakti Metal Industries',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shakti Metal Industries Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Judgment not erroneous if petition worded loosely. Party to go in appeal or writ. - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 41: [ Swatanter Kumar, CJ, Smt Ranjana Desai & D.B. Bhosale, JJ] Arrest of accused - Held, A Police Officer or a person empowered to arrest may arrest a person without intervention of the Court subject to the limitations specified under the provisions of the Code. The provisions of Section 41 of the Code provides for arrest by a Police Officer without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant. A distinct and different power under Section 44 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to arrest or order any person to arrest the offender. Under Section 44 of the Code, that power is vested in the Court of the Magistrate when an offence is committed in his presence. If the Legislature has taken care of providing such specific power under Section 44 of the Code, then there could be no reason for such a power not to be specified under the provisions of Chapter XII of the Code. In terms of Section 41, a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant or order from the Magistrate for any or all of the conditions specified in that provision. Language of this provision clearly suggested that the Police Officer can arrest a person without an order from the Magistrate. Thus, there appears to be no reason why on the strength of Section 156(3) of the Code, any restriction should be read into the power specifically granted by the legislature to the Police Officer. Of course, freedom  of investigation is the essence of these provisions but  in order to suppress the mischief it is sufficiently indicated under different provisions of the Code that the arresting officer should exercise his power or discretion judiciously and should be free of motive. Some kind of inbuilt safeguard is available to the accused in the cases where the Magistrate directs investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 438 of the Code by approaching the Court of Session or the High Court for such relief. Thus, during the course of investigation of a criminal case, an accused is not  remediless and that would further buttress the above view. [Jagannath Singh v Dr. Ajay Upadyay & anr 2006 Cri LJ 4274; 2006 (5) AIR Bom R held per incuriam].',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1989-01-12',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.K. Desai, Ag. C.J. and ;H.H. Kantharia, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.K. Desai, Ag. C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this appeal, the order of the learned single Judge dated 20th April, 1988 stands impugned. As we understand this order the learned single Judge has formed a view that the petitioners' have not paid the countervailing duty on the entire raw material used by the petitioners. In view of the rather loose phraseology employed in the petition particularly in para 9(k), we cannot say that the learned Judge is in any error. Even otherwise it appears from Exhibit 'F' that only certain' information is being sought from the petitioners. We are sure that if the petitioners show and demonstrate that the necessary duty has been paid on the entire raw material used by the petitioners either imported by them or' brought from the market, they will be entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. If and when any adverse order is passed against them it would be then open to the petitioners to carry the matter in appeal or to impugn those orders by appropriate writ proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In this view of the matter, the appeal stands dismissed but with no order as to costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, Notice of Motion No. 2497 of 1988 does not survive and the same will also stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs of the Motion also.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1989(22)LC640(Bombay)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Union of India (Uoi) and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Excise',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shakti-metal-industries-vs-union-india',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '360079',
		(int) 1 => 'shakti-metal-industries-vs-union-india'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shakti Metal Industries Vs the Union of India Uoi and ors - Citation 360079 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '360079',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 1097 of 1988 in Writ Petition No. 2156 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Shakti Metal Industries',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shakti Metal Industries Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Judgment not erroneous if petition worded loosely. Party to go in appeal or writ. - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 41: [ Swatanter Kumar, CJ, Smt Ranjana Desai & D.B. Bhosale, JJ] Arrest of accused - Held, A Police Officer or a person empowered to arrest may arrest a person without intervention of the Court subject to the limitations specified under the provisions of the Code. The provisions of Section 41 of the Code provides for arrest by a Police Officer without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant. A distinct and different power under Section 44 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to arrest or order any person to arrest the offender. Under Section 44 of the Code, that power is vested in the Court of the Magistrate when an offence is committed in his presence. If the Legislature has taken care of providing such specific power under Section 44 of the Code, then there could be no reason for such a power not to be specified under the provisions of Chapter XII of the Code. In terms of Section 41, a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant or order from the Magistrate for any or all of the conditions specified in that provision. Language of this provision clearly suggested that the Police Officer can arrest a person without an order from the Magistrate. Thus, there appears to be no reason why on the strength of Section 156(3) of the Code, any restriction should be read into the power specifically granted by the legislature to the Police Officer. Of course, freedom  of investigation is the essence of these provisions but  in order to suppress the mischief it is sufficiently indicated under different provisions of the Code that the arresting officer should exercise his power or discretion judiciously and should be free of motive. Some kind of inbuilt safeguard is available to the accused in the cases where the Magistrate directs investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 438 of the Code by approaching the Court of Session or the High Court for such relief. Thus, during the course of investigation of a criminal case, an accused is not  remediless and that would further buttress the above view. [Jagannath Singh v Dr. Ajay Upadyay & anr 2006 Cri LJ 4274; 2006 (5) AIR Bom R held per incuriam].',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1989-01-12',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.K. Desai, Ag. C.J. and ;H.H. Kantharia, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.K. Desai, Ag. C.J.</p><p>1. In this appeal, the order of the learned single Judge dated 20th April, 1988 stands impugned. As we understand this order the learned single Judge has formed a view that the petitioners' have not paid the countervailing duty on the entire raw material used by the petitioners. In view of the rather loose phraseology employed in the petition particularly in para 9(k), we cannot say that the learned Judge is in any error. Even otherwise it appears from Exhibit 'F' that only certain' information is being sought from the petitioners. We are sure that if the petitioners show and demonstrate that the necessary duty has been paid on the entire raw material used by the petitioners either imported by them or' brought from the market, they will be entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. If and when any adverse order is passed against them it would be then open to the petitioners to carry the matter in appeal or to impugn those orders by appropriate writ proceedings.</p><p>2. In this view of the matter, the appeal stands dismissed but with no order as to costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, Notice of Motion No. 2497 of 1988 does not survive and the same will also stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs of the Motion also.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1989(22)LC640(Bombay)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Union of India (Uoi) and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Excise',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shakti-metal-industries-vs-union-india'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '360079',
	(int) 1 => 'shakti-metal-industries-vs-union-india'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/360079/shakti-metal-industries-vs-union-india'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.K. Desai, Ag. C.J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this appeal, the order of the learned single Judge dated 20th April, 1988 stands impugned. As we understand this order the learned single Judge has formed a view that the petitioners' have not paid the countervailing duty on the entire raw material used by the petitioners. In view of the rather loose phraseology employed in the petition particularly in para 9(k), we cannot say that the learned Judge is in any error. Even otherwise it appears from Exhibit 'F' that only certain' information is being sought from the petitioners. We are sure that if the petitioners show and demonstrate that the necessary duty has been paid on the entire raw material used by the petitioners either imported by them or' brought from the market, they will be entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. If and when any adverse order is passed against them it would be then open to the petitioners to carry the matter in appeal or to impugn those orders by appropriate writ proceedings.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. In this view of the matter, the appeal stands dismissed but with no order as to costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, Notice of Motion No. 2497 of 1988 does not survive and the same will also stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs of the Motion also.<p>',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 4
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

S.K. Desai, Ag. C.J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shakti Metal Industries Vs the Union of India Uoi and ors - Citation 360079 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '360079',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 1097 of 1988 in Writ Petition No. 2156 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Shakti Metal Industries',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shakti Metal Industries Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Judgment not erroneous if petition worded loosely. Party to go in appeal or writ. - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 41: [ Swatanter Kumar, CJ, Smt Ranjana Desai & D.B. Bhosale, JJ] Arrest of accused - Held, A Police Officer or a person empowered to arrest may arrest a person without intervention of the Court subject to the limitations specified under the provisions of the Code. The provisions of Section 41 of the Code provides for arrest by a Police Officer without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant. A distinct and different power under Section 44 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to arrest or order any person to arrest the offender. Under Section 44 of the Code, that power is vested in the Court of the Magistrate when an offence is committed in his presence. If the Legislature has taken care of providing such specific power under Section 44 of the Code, then there could be no reason for such a power not to be specified under the provisions of Chapter XII of the Code. In terms of Section 41, a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant or order from the Magistrate for any or all of the conditions specified in that provision. Language of this provision clearly suggested that the Police Officer can arrest a person without an order from the Magistrate. Thus, there appears to be no reason why on the strength of Section 156(3) of the Code, any restriction should be read into the power specifically granted by the legislature to the Police Officer. Of course, freedom  of investigation is the essence of these provisions but  in order to suppress the mischief it is sufficiently indicated under different provisions of the Code that the arresting officer should exercise his power or discretion judiciously and should be free of motive. Some kind of inbuilt safeguard is available to the accused in the cases where the Magistrate directs investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 438 of the Code by approaching the Court of Session or the High Court for such relief. Thus, during the course of investigation of a criminal case, an accused is not  remediless and that would further buttress the above view. [Jagannath Singh v Dr. Ajay Upadyay & anr 2006 Cri LJ 4274; 2006 (5) AIR Bom R held per incuriam].',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1989-01-12',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.K. Desai, Ag. C.J. and ;H.H. Kantharia, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.K. Desai, Ag. C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this appeal, the order of the learned single Judge dated 20th April, 1988 stands impugned. As we understand this order the learned single Judge has formed a view that the petitioners' have not paid the countervailing duty on the entire raw material used by the petitioners. In view of the rather loose phraseology employed in the petition particularly in para 9(k), we cannot say that the learned Judge is in any error. Even otherwise it appears from Exhibit 'F' that only certain' information is being sought from the petitioners. We are sure that if the petitioners show and demonstrate that the necessary duty has been paid on the entire raw material used by the petitioners either imported by them or' brought from the market, they will be entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. If and when any adverse order is passed against them it would be then open to the petitioners to carry the matter in appeal or to impugn those orders by appropriate writ proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In this view of the matter, the appeal stands dismissed but with no order as to costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, Notice of Motion No. 2497 of 1988 does not survive and the same will also stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs of the Motion also.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1989(22)LC640(Bombay)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Union of India (Uoi) and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Excise',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shakti-metal-industries-vs-union-india',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '360079',
		(int) 1 => 'shakti-metal-industries-vs-union-india'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shakti Metal Industries Vs the Union of India Uoi and ors - Citation 360079 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '360079',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 1097 of 1988 in Writ Petition No. 2156 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Shakti Metal Industries',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shakti Metal Industries Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Judgment not erroneous if petition worded loosely. Party to go in appeal or writ. - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 41: [ Swatanter Kumar, CJ, Smt Ranjana Desai & D.B. Bhosale, JJ] Arrest of accused - Held, A Police Officer or a person empowered to arrest may arrest a person without intervention of the Court subject to the limitations specified under the provisions of the Code. The provisions of Section 41 of the Code provides for arrest by a Police Officer without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant. A distinct and different power under Section 44 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to arrest or order any person to arrest the offender. Under Section 44 of the Code, that power is vested in the Court of the Magistrate when an offence is committed in his presence. If the Legislature has taken care of providing such specific power under Section 44 of the Code, then there could be no reason for such a power not to be specified under the provisions of Chapter XII of the Code. In terms of Section 41, a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant or order from the Magistrate for any or all of the conditions specified in that provision. Language of this provision clearly suggested that the Police Officer can arrest a person without an order from the Magistrate. Thus, there appears to be no reason why on the strength of Section 156(3) of the Code, any restriction should be read into the power specifically granted by the legislature to the Police Officer. Of course, freedom  of investigation is the essence of these provisions but  in order to suppress the mischief it is sufficiently indicated under different provisions of the Code that the arresting officer should exercise his power or discretion judiciously and should be free of motive. Some kind of inbuilt safeguard is available to the accused in the cases where the Magistrate directs investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 438 of the Code by approaching the Court of Session or the High Court for such relief. Thus, during the course of investigation of a criminal case, an accused is not  remediless and that would further buttress the above view. [Jagannath Singh v Dr. Ajay Upadyay & anr 2006 Cri LJ 4274; 2006 (5) AIR Bom R held per incuriam].',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1989-01-12',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.K. Desai, Ag. C.J. and ;H.H. Kantharia, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.K. Desai, Ag. C.J.</p><p>1. In this appeal, the order of the learned single Judge dated 20th April, 1988 stands impugned. As we understand this order the learned single Judge has formed a view that the petitioners' have not paid the countervailing duty on the entire raw material used by the petitioners. In view of the rather loose phraseology employed in the petition particularly in para 9(k), we cannot say that the learned Judge is in any error. Even otherwise it appears from Exhibit 'F' that only certain' information is being sought from the petitioners. We are sure that if the petitioners show and demonstrate that the necessary duty has been paid on the entire raw material used by the petitioners either imported by them or' brought from the market, they will be entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. If and when any adverse order is passed against them it would be then open to the petitioners to carry the matter in appeal or to impugn those orders by appropriate writ proceedings.</p><p>2. In this view of the matter, the appeal stands dismissed but with no order as to costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, Notice of Motion No. 2497 of 1988 does not survive and the same will also stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs of the Motion also.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1989(22)LC640(Bombay)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Union of India (Uoi) and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Excise',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shakti-metal-industries-vs-union-india'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '360079',
	(int) 1 => 'shakti-metal-industries-vs-union-india'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/360079/shakti-metal-industries-vs-union-india'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.K. Desai, Ag. C.J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this appeal, the order of the learned single Judge dated 20th April, 1988 stands impugned. As we understand this order the learned single Judge has formed a view that the petitioners' have not paid the countervailing duty on the entire raw material used by the petitioners. In view of the rather loose phraseology employed in the petition particularly in para 9(k), we cannot say that the learned Judge is in any error. Even otherwise it appears from Exhibit 'F' that only certain' information is being sought from the petitioners. We are sure that if the petitioners show and demonstrate that the necessary duty has been paid on the entire raw material used by the petitioners either imported by them or' brought from the market, they will be entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. If and when any adverse order is passed against them it would be then open to the petitioners to carry the matter in appeal or to impugn those orders by appropriate writ proceedings.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. In this view of the matter, the appeal stands dismissed but with no order as to costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, Notice of Motion No. 2497 of 1988 does not survive and the same will also stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs of the Motion also.<p>',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 4
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. In this appeal, the order of the learned single Judge dated 20th April, 1988 stands impugned. As we understand this order the learned single Judge has formed a view that the petitioners' have not paid the countervailing duty on the entire raw material used by the petitioners. In view of the rather loose phraseology employed in the petition particularly in para 9(k), we cannot say that the learned Judge is in any error. Even otherwise it appears from Exhibit 'F' that only certain' information is being sought from the petitioners. We are sure that if the petitioners show and demonstrate that the necessary duty has been paid on the entire raw material used by the petitioners either imported by them or' brought from the market, they will be entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. If and when any adverse order is passed against them it would be then open to the petitioners to carry the matter in appeal or to impugn those orders by appropriate writ proceedings.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shakti Metal Industries Vs the Union of India Uoi and ors - Citation 360079 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '360079',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 1097 of 1988 in Writ Petition No. 2156 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Shakti Metal Industries',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shakti Metal Industries Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Judgment not erroneous if petition worded loosely. Party to go in appeal or writ. - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 41: [ Swatanter Kumar, CJ, Smt Ranjana Desai & D.B. Bhosale, JJ] Arrest of accused - Held, A Police Officer or a person empowered to arrest may arrest a person without intervention of the Court subject to the limitations specified under the provisions of the Code. The provisions of Section 41 of the Code provides for arrest by a Police Officer without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant. A distinct and different power under Section 44 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to arrest or order any person to arrest the offender. Under Section 44 of the Code, that power is vested in the Court of the Magistrate when an offence is committed in his presence. If the Legislature has taken care of providing such specific power under Section 44 of the Code, then there could be no reason for such a power not to be specified under the provisions of Chapter XII of the Code. In terms of Section 41, a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant or order from the Magistrate for any or all of the conditions specified in that provision. Language of this provision clearly suggested that the Police Officer can arrest a person without an order from the Magistrate. Thus, there appears to be no reason why on the strength of Section 156(3) of the Code, any restriction should be read into the power specifically granted by the legislature to the Police Officer. Of course, freedom  of investigation is the essence of these provisions but  in order to suppress the mischief it is sufficiently indicated under different provisions of the Code that the arresting officer should exercise his power or discretion judiciously and should be free of motive. Some kind of inbuilt safeguard is available to the accused in the cases where the Magistrate directs investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 438 of the Code by approaching the Court of Session or the High Court for such relief. Thus, during the course of investigation of a criminal case, an accused is not  remediless and that would further buttress the above view. [Jagannath Singh v Dr. Ajay Upadyay & anr 2006 Cri LJ 4274; 2006 (5) AIR Bom R held per incuriam].',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1989-01-12',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.K. Desai, Ag. C.J. and ;H.H. Kantharia, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.K. Desai, Ag. C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this appeal, the order of the learned single Judge dated 20th April, 1988 stands impugned. As we understand this order the learned single Judge has formed a view that the petitioners' have not paid the countervailing duty on the entire raw material used by the petitioners. In view of the rather loose phraseology employed in the petition particularly in para 9(k), we cannot say that the learned Judge is in any error. Even otherwise it appears from Exhibit 'F' that only certain' information is being sought from the petitioners. We are sure that if the petitioners show and demonstrate that the necessary duty has been paid on the entire raw material used by the petitioners either imported by them or' brought from the market, they will be entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. If and when any adverse order is passed against them it would be then open to the petitioners to carry the matter in appeal or to impugn those orders by appropriate writ proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In this view of the matter, the appeal stands dismissed but with no order as to costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, Notice of Motion No. 2497 of 1988 does not survive and the same will also stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs of the Motion also.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1989(22)LC640(Bombay)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Union of India (Uoi) and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Excise',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shakti-metal-industries-vs-union-india',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '360079',
		(int) 1 => 'shakti-metal-industries-vs-union-india'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shakti Metal Industries Vs the Union of India Uoi and ors - Citation 360079 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '360079',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 1097 of 1988 in Writ Petition No. 2156 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Shakti Metal Industries',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shakti Metal Industries Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Judgment not erroneous if petition worded loosely. Party to go in appeal or writ. - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 41: [ Swatanter Kumar, CJ, Smt Ranjana Desai & D.B. Bhosale, JJ] Arrest of accused - Held, A Police Officer or a person empowered to arrest may arrest a person without intervention of the Court subject to the limitations specified under the provisions of the Code. The provisions of Section 41 of the Code provides for arrest by a Police Officer without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant. A distinct and different power under Section 44 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to arrest or order any person to arrest the offender. Under Section 44 of the Code, that power is vested in the Court of the Magistrate when an offence is committed in his presence. If the Legislature has taken care of providing such specific power under Section 44 of the Code, then there could be no reason for such a power not to be specified under the provisions of Chapter XII of the Code. In terms of Section 41, a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant or order from the Magistrate for any or all of the conditions specified in that provision. Language of this provision clearly suggested that the Police Officer can arrest a person without an order from the Magistrate. Thus, there appears to be no reason why on the strength of Section 156(3) of the Code, any restriction should be read into the power specifically granted by the legislature to the Police Officer. Of course, freedom  of investigation is the essence of these provisions but  in order to suppress the mischief it is sufficiently indicated under different provisions of the Code that the arresting officer should exercise his power or discretion judiciously and should be free of motive. Some kind of inbuilt safeguard is available to the accused in the cases where the Magistrate directs investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 438 of the Code by approaching the Court of Session or the High Court for such relief. Thus, during the course of investigation of a criminal case, an accused is not  remediless and that would further buttress the above view. [Jagannath Singh v Dr. Ajay Upadyay & anr 2006 Cri LJ 4274; 2006 (5) AIR Bom R held per incuriam].',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1989-01-12',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.K. Desai, Ag. C.J. and ;H.H. Kantharia, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.K. Desai, Ag. C.J.</p><p>1. In this appeal, the order of the learned single Judge dated 20th April, 1988 stands impugned. As we understand this order the learned single Judge has formed a view that the petitioners' have not paid the countervailing duty on the entire raw material used by the petitioners. In view of the rather loose phraseology employed in the petition particularly in para 9(k), we cannot say that the learned Judge is in any error. Even otherwise it appears from Exhibit 'F' that only certain' information is being sought from the petitioners. We are sure that if the petitioners show and demonstrate that the necessary duty has been paid on the entire raw material used by the petitioners either imported by them or' brought from the market, they will be entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. If and when any adverse order is passed against them it would be then open to the petitioners to carry the matter in appeal or to impugn those orders by appropriate writ proceedings.</p><p>2. In this view of the matter, the appeal stands dismissed but with no order as to costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, Notice of Motion No. 2497 of 1988 does not survive and the same will also stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs of the Motion also.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1989(22)LC640(Bombay)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Union of India (Uoi) and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Excise',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shakti-metal-industries-vs-union-india'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '360079',
	(int) 1 => 'shakti-metal-industries-vs-union-india'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/360079/shakti-metal-industries-vs-union-india'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.K. Desai, Ag. C.J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this appeal, the order of the learned single Judge dated 20th April, 1988 stands impugned. As we understand this order the learned single Judge has formed a view that the petitioners' have not paid the countervailing duty on the entire raw material used by the petitioners. In view of the rather loose phraseology employed in the petition particularly in para 9(k), we cannot say that the learned Judge is in any error. Even otherwise it appears from Exhibit 'F' that only certain' information is being sought from the petitioners. We are sure that if the petitioners show and demonstrate that the necessary duty has been paid on the entire raw material used by the petitioners either imported by them or' brought from the market, they will be entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. If and when any adverse order is passed against them it would be then open to the petitioners to carry the matter in appeal or to impugn those orders by appropriate writ proceedings.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. In this view of the matter, the appeal stands dismissed but with no order as to costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, Notice of Motion No. 2497 of 1988 does not survive and the same will also stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs of the Motion also.<p>',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 4
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. In this view of the matter, the appeal stands dismissed but with no order as to costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, Notice of Motion No. 2497 of 1988 does not survive and the same will also stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs of the Motion also.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shakti Metal Industries Vs the Union of India Uoi and ors - Citation 360079 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '360079',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 1097 of 1988 in Writ Petition No. 2156 of 1982',
			'appellant' => 'Shakti Metal Industries',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shakti Metal Industries Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Judgment not erroneous if petition worded loosely. Party to go in appeal or writ. - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 41: [ Swatanter Kumar, CJ, Smt Ranjana Desai & D.B. Bhosale, JJ] Arrest of accused - Held, A Police Officer or a person empowered to arrest may arrest a person without intervention of the Court subject to the limitations specified under the provisions of the Code. The provisions of Section 41 of the Code provides for arrest by a Police Officer without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant. A distinct and different power under Section 44 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to arrest or order any person to arrest the offender. Under Section 44 of the Code, that power is vested in the Court of the Magistrate when an offence is committed in his presence. If the Legislature has taken care of providing such specific power under Section 44 of the Code, then there could be no reason for such a power not to be specified under the provisions of Chapter XII of the Code. In terms of Section 41, a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant or order from the Magistrate for any or all of the conditions specified in that provision. Language of this provision clearly suggested that the Police Officer can arrest a person without an order from the Magistrate. Thus, there appears to be no reason why on the strength of Section 156(3) of the Code, any restriction should be read into the power specifically granted by the legislature to the Police Officer. Of course, freedom  of investigation is the essence of these provisions but  in order to suppress the mischief it is sufficiently indicated under different provisions of the Code that the arresting officer should exercise his power or discretion judiciously and should be free of motive. Some kind of inbuilt safeguard is available to the accused in the cases where the Magistrate directs investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 438 of the Code by approaching the Court of Session or the High Court for such relief. Thus, during the course of investigation of a criminal case, an accused is not  remediless and that would further buttress the above view. [Jagannath Singh v Dr. Ajay Upadyay & anr 2006 Cri LJ 4274; 2006 (5) AIR Bom R held per incuriam].',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1989-01-12',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.K. Desai, Ag. C.J. and ;H.H. Kantharia, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.K. Desai, Ag. C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this appeal, the order of the learned single Judge dated 20th April, 1988 stands impugned. As we understand this order the learned single Judge has formed a view that the petitioners' have not paid the countervailing duty on the entire raw material used by the petitioners. In view of the rather loose phraseology employed in the petition particularly in para 9(k), we cannot say that the learned Judge is in any error. Even otherwise it appears from Exhibit 'F' that only certain' information is being sought from the petitioners. We are sure that if the petitioners show and demonstrate that the necessary duty has been paid on the entire raw material used by the petitioners either imported by them or' brought from the market, they will be entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. If and when any adverse order is passed against them it would be then open to the petitioners to carry the matter in appeal or to impugn those orders by appropriate writ proceedings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In this view of the matter, the appeal stands dismissed but with no order as to costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, Notice of Motion No. 2497 of 1988 does not survive and the same will also stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs of the Motion also.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1989(22)LC640(Bombay)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Union of India (Uoi) and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Excise',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shakti-metal-industries-vs-union-india',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '360079',
		(int) 1 => 'shakti-metal-industries-vs-union-india'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shakti Metal Industries Vs the Union of India Uoi and ors - Citation 360079 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '360079',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 1097 of 1988 in Writ Petition No. 2156 of 1982',
		'appellant' => 'Shakti Metal Industries',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shakti Metal Industries Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Judgment not erroneous if petition worded loosely. Party to go in appeal or writ. - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974]. Section 41: [ Swatanter Kumar, CJ, Smt Ranjana Desai & D.B. Bhosale, JJ] Arrest of accused - Held, A Police Officer or a person empowered to arrest may arrest a person without intervention of the Court subject to the limitations specified under the provisions of the Code. The provisions of Section 41 of the Code provides for arrest by a Police Officer without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant. A distinct and different power under Section 44 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to arrest or order any person to arrest the offender. Under Section 44 of the Code, that power is vested in the Court of the Magistrate when an offence is committed in his presence. If the Legislature has taken care of providing such specific power under Section 44 of the Code, then there could be no reason for such a power not to be specified under the provisions of Chapter XII of the Code. In terms of Section 41, a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant or order from the Magistrate for any or all of the conditions specified in that provision. Language of this provision clearly suggested that the Police Officer can arrest a person without an order from the Magistrate. Thus, there appears to be no reason why on the strength of Section 156(3) of the Code, any restriction should be read into the power specifically granted by the legislature to the Police Officer. Of course, freedom  of investigation is the essence of these provisions but  in order to suppress the mischief it is sufficiently indicated under different provisions of the Code that the arresting officer should exercise his power or discretion judiciously and should be free of motive. Some kind of inbuilt safeguard is available to the accused in the cases where the Magistrate directs investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 438 of the Code by approaching the Court of Session or the High Court for such relief. Thus, during the course of investigation of a criminal case, an accused is not  remediless and that would further buttress the above view. [Jagannath Singh v Dr. Ajay Upadyay & anr 2006 Cri LJ 4274; 2006 (5) AIR Bom R held per incuriam].',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1989-01-12',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.K. Desai, Ag. C.J. and ;H.H. Kantharia, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.K. Desai, Ag. C.J.</p><p>1. In this appeal, the order of the learned single Judge dated 20th April, 1988 stands impugned. As we understand this order the learned single Judge has formed a view that the petitioners' have not paid the countervailing duty on the entire raw material used by the petitioners. In view of the rather loose phraseology employed in the petition particularly in para 9(k), we cannot say that the learned Judge is in any error. Even otherwise it appears from Exhibit 'F' that only certain' information is being sought from the petitioners. We are sure that if the petitioners show and demonstrate that the necessary duty has been paid on the entire raw material used by the petitioners either imported by them or' brought from the market, they will be entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. If and when any adverse order is passed against them it would be then open to the petitioners to carry the matter in appeal or to impugn those orders by appropriate writ proceedings.</p><p>2. In this view of the matter, the appeal stands dismissed but with no order as to costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, Notice of Motion No. 2497 of 1988 does not survive and the same will also stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs of the Motion also.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1989(22)LC640(Bombay)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Union of India (Uoi) and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Excise',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shakti-metal-industries-vs-union-india'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '360079',
	(int) 1 => 'shakti-metal-industries-vs-union-india'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/360079/shakti-metal-industries-vs-union-india'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.K. Desai, Ag. C.J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this appeal, the order of the learned single Judge dated 20th April, 1988 stands impugned. As we understand this order the learned single Judge has formed a view that the petitioners' have not paid the countervailing duty on the entire raw material used by the petitioners. In view of the rather loose phraseology employed in the petition particularly in para 9(k), we cannot say that the learned Judge is in any error. Even otherwise it appears from Exhibit 'F' that only certain' information is being sought from the petitioners. We are sure that if the petitioners show and demonstrate that the necessary duty has been paid on the entire raw material used by the petitioners either imported by them or' brought from the market, they will be entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. If and when any adverse order is passed against them it would be then open to the petitioners to carry the matter in appeal or to impugn those orders by appropriate writ proceedings.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. In this view of the matter, the appeal stands dismissed but with no order as to costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, Notice of Motion No. 2497 of 1988 does not survive and the same will also stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs of the Motion also.<p>',
	(int) 3 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 4
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subject	Excise
Court	Mumbai High Court
Decided On	Jan-12-1989
Case Number	Appeal No. 1097 of 1988 in Writ Petition No. 2156 of 1982
Judge	S.K. Desai, Ag. C.J. and ;H.H. Kantharia, J.
Reported in	1989(22)LC640(Bombay)
Appellant	Shakti Metal Industries
Respondent	The Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Disposition	Appeal dismissed

Shakti Metal Industries Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors. - Court Judgment