RIKHAB CHAND JAIN vs UNION OF INDIA CUSTOMS COMMISSIONER — C.A. No. 6719/2012
Case under Indirect Taxation : Customs Act, Customs Tariff Act, Export, Import and Anti-dumping Duty Section XV. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010086532012
Filing Date
13-Mar-2012
Registration No
C.A. No. 6719/2012
Diary Number
8653/2012
Order Date
12-Nov-2025
Document Type
Judgement - of Main Case
Neutral Citation
2025 INSC 1337
Disposal Type
Dismissed
Last updated 05-Jul-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.RIKHAB CHAND JAIN
Adv. CHITRANGDA RASTRAVARA[P-1]
Respondent(s)
-
1.UNION OF INDIA CUSTOMS COMMISSIONER
Adv. ARVIND KUMAR SHARMA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
12-Nov-2025
Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF
-
12-Nov-2025
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
12-Nov-2025
Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar
-
06-Nov-2025
Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih
-
30-Oct-2025
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih
-
29-Oct-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
19-Sep-2025
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
13-Mar-2012
Case filed
Registration No. C.A. No. 6719/2012
-
[ 2025 INSC 1337 ]
Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF
Summary of C.A. No. 006719/2012 - Rikhab Chand Jain v. Union of India The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal, upholding the High Court's rejection of his writ petition. The Court held that since the Customs Act provided an alternative statutory remedy (Section 130A appeal to the High Court) available within 180 days of the CEGAT's June 2000 order, the appellant could not later invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 after allowing the deadline to lapse. The Court emphasized that when a statutory forum designated for relief is the High Court itself, refusing writ jurisdiction is the rule, not the exception, and the appellant's own delay in pursuing the proper remedy barred discretionary relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts