Trending :
Lawtext
Search
Login / Register
Sign In
HomeJudgement
Scroll Down To Discover
High Court

WRIT PETITION NO. 3310 OF 2017

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
Admin
2026-08-04 12:08:20
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Issue of Consideration

WRIT PETITION NO. 3310 OF 2017

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Case Details

2017 LawText (BOM) (06) 17

Writ Petition No. 3310 of 2017

2017-06-05

S. C. Dharmadhikari, Prakash D. Naik

Janak Dwarkadas (Senior Advocate) with Rohan Rajadhyaksha, Adhip Iyer, Cheryl Fernandes, Divij Joshi i/b M/s. AZB and Partners for the petitioners; Anil C. Singh (Additional Solicitor General) with Pradeep S. Jetly, Indrayani Deshmukh for respondent nos.1 to 7; Birendra Saraf and Yuvraj K. Singh i/b M/s. Desai and Diwanji for respondent no. 9

All Cargo Logistics Ltd., Ameya Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Apollo Logisolutions Ltd., Ashte Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd., EFC Logistics India Pvt. Ltd., Gateway Distriparks Ltd., International Cargo Terminals & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Kerry Indev Logistcs Pvt. Ltd., Ocean Gate Container Terminals Pvt Ltd., Take Care Logistic Park (India) Pvt. Ltd., TG Terminals Pvt. Ltd., Seabird Marine Services Pvt Ltd., Adarsh Hegde, Ashish Dhurvendra Goel, Pisipati Sri Siva Prasad, Rajkumar Khemchand Rawlani, Darayush K Jalanwalla, Kalyan Chowdhury, Ishaan Gupta, Krishna B Kotak, Sivasankaran Jayaraman, K. Sriramamurthy, Iqbal Hussain Qazi, Jignesh Anantray Goradia, Yogesh Khatau Parekh

Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue; Chief Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Customs Zone-II; Commissioner of Customs (Import), JNCH; Commissioner of Customs, NS-III; Commissioner of Customs, NS-I, IV & V; Commissioner of Customs, NS-G; Central Board of Excise & Customs; Container Freight Station Association (India); Speedy Multimodes Ltd.; Assistant Commissioner of Customs, CFS Management Cell

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

The petitioners, comprising logistics companies and their directors, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging certain public notices issued by customs authorities regarding the appointment of a designated Container Freight Station (CFS) and related tender notice, alleging violation of their rights and arbitrary action.

Remedy Sought

The petitioners sought to quash Public Notice Nos. 8/2017, 16/2017, 27/2017, para 4.9 of Public Notice No. 161/2016, paragraphs 3.7 and 3.8 of Facility Notice No. 63 of 2008, the appointment of respondent no. 9 as designated CFS, and the tender notice dated 17/3/2017, and further sought a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from enforcing the impugned notices.

Filing Reason

The petitioners contended that the impugned notices and appointment were contrary to law and prejudiced their interests, but the specific reasons are not elaborated in the excerpt provided.

Judgment Excerpts

The need for CFS was in response to the growing volume of international trade, the need for expeditious clearance of goods at the port within minimum possible time. The CFS has, therefore, been recognised as an extension of a customs station, set up with the main objective of decongesting the port.

Procedural History

The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. On 10th April 2017, the matter was reserved for judgment, and on 5th June 2017, the judgment was pronounced. Prior to that, the court issued Rule, and the respondents waived service; by consent, Rule was made returnable forthwith.

Acts & Sections

  • Customs Act, 1962:
  • Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009:
  • Constitution of India: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Tags :
Container Freight Station Public Notice Designated CFS Facility Notice Jawaharlal Nehru Customs House Customs Act, 1962 Writ Petition Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009 Tender Notice

Pay once for this file or subscribe for unlimited downloads

Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay Quashes Scrutiny Committee Order Invalidating Halba/Halbi (S.T.) Caste Claim, Directing Validity Certificate. Pre-Constitution Documents of 1920 Held to Have High Probative Value and Could Not Be Discarded Without Cogent Reasons ... 2026-08-04 12:08:20
Related Judgement
High Court WRIT PETITION NO. 3310 OF 2017 2026-08-04 12:08:20
Categories
Popular Tags
writ petition acquittal natural justice murder compensation burden of proof benefit of doubt limitation Article 226 circumstantial evidence
Follow Us

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensation Cases,...

Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Dispute — Upho...

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Suit for Spec...

Bombay High Court at Goa Dismisses Review Petition in Partition Suit Impleadment Case — ...

Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Corruption Case Due to Unreliable Trap Witness and La...

Supreme Court Hears Appeals Against Madras High Court’s Setting Aside of Alienations and...

Supreme Court Hears Appeals on Permanent Establishment of Formula One World Championship L...

Supreme Court Interprets Scope of 'Child' under POCSO Act in Appeal Concerning Mentally Ch...

Supreme Court Hears Appeals Against High Court Decrees in Malankara Church Disputes. Rival...

Supreme Court Directs State Governments to Implement National Food Security Act, 2013 Mand...

Lost Your Password?