✦ Bombay High Court · 11 Jan 1985

V/s v. Nirmal Chand V. Prasad

D Y CHANDRACHUD2 min read

Case at a glance

Decided
11 Jan 1985
Bench
D Y CHANDRACHUD

Provisions considered

Judgment

1.

This is a suit by the Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai for the recovery of a sum of Rs.1,53,700 together with interest on the principal sum of Rs.1,50,537.50 at the rate of 15% per annum.

In January 1985, the Defendant imported a motor vehicle manifested Item No.19 Import General Manifest No.56 11th January

1985. The General Landing Date Last Free vessel vehicle imported 12th January 1985 16th January 1985 respectively. The Defendant importer and/or vehicle liable assignment within 7 days. By 6th August 1986, vehicle confiscated Additional Collector Customs :2: Section 111(d) Customs Act,

1962. The Defendant liable Plaintiff wharfage, demurrage charges Board Trustees confiscation amounting Rs.1,50,537.50. Letters demand addressed Plaintiff the Defendant on 14th November 1987 and 15th December

3.

No written statement has been filed in the suit

1988. The accordingly directed proceed written statement. The Plaintiffs affidavit Assistant Docks Manager together a compilation original documents. The Plaintiffs stands proved. The affidavit in lieu of the examination in chief and compilation of original documents are taken on record.

4.

In the circumstances, the Defendants is ordered and decreed Plaintiff Rs.1,53,700 interest principal Rs.1,50,537.50 rate of 9 % per annum from the date of the institution of the suit till the payment or realisation. -----

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Customs Act, 1962 — s. 111(d).

Which court decided this case, and when?

Bombay High Court, on 11 Jan 1985. The bench was D Y CHANDRACHUD.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments