Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus M/S. KUNDAN RICE MILLS LTD.

Decided
3 November 2008
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 133 · 2008 INSC 1230

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Heard.

p. 133, margin F

2

Though these matters were listed for admission, learned counsel for the parties requested the matters to be taken up for final disposal.

p. 133, margin G

3

Leave granted.

p. 133, margin G

4

We find that while adjudicating an interim m~atter, the High Court has given a categorical finding on merits holding inter-alia that there is nothing to show that even prima facie, goods are liable to confiscation. The High Court appears to have decided the matter on merits finally even though that was not the stage for doing so and was beyond the scope of adjudication of the writ petition. This is not the way the High Court should have dealt with the matter. Apart from that, the · High Court has not indicated any reason as to why the condition of execution of indemnity bond equivalent to seizure value of goods and/or furnishing of bank guarantee equal to 10% of value of goods, as was stipulated by the authorities, was not justified. This also adds to the vulnerability of the order. We set aside the impugned orders of the High Court. Let the High Court hear the matters afresh. To avoid unnecessary delay, let the pqrties appear before the High Court, without further notice, on 1i11.2008.

p. 134, margin A

5

The Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court is requested to allot the matters, i.e. CWP No.13914/2008 and COCP No.1536/2008 to an appropriate Bench.

p. 134, margin C

6

The appeals are disposed of accordingly. N.J. Appeals disposed of.

p. 134, margin E