2016 (7) TMI 1336 - HC - Customs

High Seas Sale - purchase of Raw Cashew Nuts - it is the stand of the petitioner that the title of the goods was on the basis of Bill of Ladings carrier documents vested with the first respondent/writ petitioner and after the High Sea Sale Agreement, the title of goods transfers to their Firm and prior to the entry of goods in the territorial jurisdiction of India, etc - Held that - the fifth respondent proceeds to take a plea that although the first respondent/writ petitioner and the petitioner/proposed sixth respondent s claims that the Bill of Ladings were issued in their name, they were not able to produce the same either before the investigating officer, East Police Station, Kollam or before this Court. Also that the first respondent/writ petitioner had not established high right over the goods in issue, as the Bill of Lading does not reflect its name, as the consignee. The petitioner/proposed sixth respondent if at all can make any claim, it can be done only against the first respondent/writ petitioner and that too, by means of a separate civil proceedings - the petitioner cannot implead as proposed sixth respondent in the main writ petition - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Impleadment of the petitioner as the sixth respondent in the main writ petition.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought impleadment as the sixth respondent in the main writ petition, claiming to be a bona fide purchaser of Raw Cashew Nuts from the first respondent under a valid High Sea Sale Agreement. The petitioner argued that the title of the goods transferred to their firm based on carrier documents like 'Bill of Ladings' after the High Sea Sale Agreement, emphasizing the need to safeguard their legal and constitutional rights. The petitioner had also invested a substantial amount and entered into further sale agreements with traders. It was contended that impleading the petitioner was crucial to secure the ends of justice.

The fifth respondent countered by stating that they had entered into an agreement with another party for the supply of Raw Cashew Nuts, and the Bills of Lading were issued in a different name due to an error. The fifth respondent argued that the first respondent did not have a high right over the goods in question as the Bill of Lading did not reflect their name as the consignee. The fifth respondent maintained that any claim by the petitioner could only be made against the first respondent through separate civil proceedings, thus opposing the impleadment of the petitioner as the sixth respondent in the main writ petition.

After considering the arguments of both parties, the Court found that the petitioner claimed to be a bona fide purchaser of Raw Cashews and had entered into a valid High Sea Sale Agreement with the first respondent. The Court, in the interest of justice and fair play, exercised its judicial discretion to allow the impleadment of the petitioner as the sixth respondent. The Court emphasized that impleading a party is a matter of fact rather than a matter of law in pending proceedings, furthering the substantial cause of justice.