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.

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

Indirect Taxation : Customs Act, Customs Tariff Act, Export, Import and Anti-Dumping duty Section XV

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RIKHAB CHAND JAIN

    Adv. CHITRANGDA RASTRAVARA[P-1]

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.UNION OF INDIA CUSTOMS COMMISSIONER

    Adv. ARVIND KUMAR SHARMA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Nov-2025

    Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 12-Nov-2025

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 12-Nov-2025

    Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar

  5. 06-Nov-2025

    Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih

  6. 30-Oct-2025

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih

  7. 29-Oct-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 19-Sep-2025

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 13-Mar-2012

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 6719/2012

  10. [ 2025 INSC 1337 ]

    Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF

casestatus.in Summary

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

Search Another Case