HC rejects plea on gold bangles
The tax bench of the Telangana High Court, comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice N. Tukaramji, refused to interfere with the orders of Cestat (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) seeking to confiscate five gold bangles, valued at `8.5 lakh on the date of seizure in 2014. The panel passed the order in a writ plea filed by Elete Suseela and another. The petitioners said that the bangles were seized when the couple was walking out of the Customs area at the Rajiv Gandhi International Airport. While the original order was of confiscation, the appellate authority directed the couple to pay custom duty of 35 per cent for taking back the goods. The petitioner's plea that the bangles were gifted to her during her stay with her daughter in Chicago was rejected. Dominque Fernandez, representing the department, said the case fell within the definition of smuggling and violation of the foreign trade policy. He said the petitioners "have not been saddled with the tax liability of payment of excess duty but have only been ordered to pay fine and penalty which too has been subsequently reduced substantially by the appellate authority." Speaking for the bench,
Justice Koshy noted that the petitioners did not satisfy the condition of having stayed abroad for more than six months. Since the petitioners were not eligible passengers in terms of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 read with the Foreign Trade (Exemption from Application of Rules in Certain Cases) Order, 1993, the original authority was correct in finding the petitioners ineligible to import the gold bangles. The panel noted that the petitioners had availed the option that was floated by the adjudicating authority at the first instance and said they cannot be permitted to challenge the order they had voluntarily complied with.
HC REFUSES PLEA BY K'TAKA LANDOWNERS
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court refused to hear a writ plea filed by the owners of land in Karnataka on the grounds of portfolios. The judge directed the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice for posting before the appropriate court. V.C. Maylarappa Chilkkamelurappa moved the High Court complaining that by an order made by the XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, he was remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner's case was that he was falsely implicated at the instance of the complainant in a case of cheating, criminal breach of trust and criminal intimidation. He contended that there was a land transaction under which the petitioner agreed to sell approximately 11 acres of land in favour of the complainant and entered into a registered agreement of sale. However, the agreement of sale did not materialise in the registration of a sale deed. In any event, he said, the magistrate erred in remanding him to custody without following the directions of the Supreme Court in the Arnesh Kumar case. The matter is likely to be listed before the appropriate judge on April 1.
SR COUNSEL TO MEDIATE IN FAMILY ROW
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sujoy Paul, appointed senior counsel D. Prakash Reddy to mediate in a domestic dispute for payment of maintenance to parents, who are senior citizens. A writ plea was filed by Kasupa Gowramma and K. Dayanand, complaining about the illtreatment meted out to them by their son and his wife. They said that not only did his son demand money and took three tolas of gold ornaments for expanding his business, which were not returned, but also threw them out of their house to grab the property. This led the petitioners to file an application before the regional divisional officer under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act and the Telangana Maintenance and Welfare of parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2011 seeking protection and maintenance. Aggrieved by the order of `10,000 per month, an appeal was filed before the authority, which was dismissed. Seeking protection to life and liberty from the constant harassment and mental torture, a writ plea was filed. It was the contention of the petitioners that unless there was a legally enforceable right, the respondent was not entitled to deny the right of petitioners and deprive them from enjoying their property. They said the direction to them to file a civil suit for recovery of possession was frustrating the whole purpose and object of the Senior Citizens Act. The petitioners contended that the respondents had not contributed any share to purchase the property and therefore did not have any right to enjoy the property. They contended that they were not in a position to maintain themselves on a mere amount of `20,000 per month. The respondent authorities said that acting on the complaints submitted by the petitioners to the Chatrinaka station house officer, a preliminary enquiry was conducted, wherein it was revealed that there were civil disputes between the parties and the complaints of the petitioners were closed as "civil in nature" and also that they had no power to evict the respondents. The respondents contended that the property was purchased by using the funds of a Hindu undivided family and as such the petitioners were not entitled to claim the property as absolutely acquired by them since the share of respondents was also involved. The court, in its considered view, held that the meagre amount of petitioners was being spent for their medical expenses and directed the son to pay `30,000 per month towards maintenance to the petitioners till the delivery of possession to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the order the present appeal was filed and the court directed senior counsel Prakash Reddy to mediate in the domestic dispute.