2015 (9) TMI 1138 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of petition - Contractual obligations between parties - Alternate remedy - Held that - Petition is liable to be dismissed on the simple ground that the petitioner has already approached the Principal District Munsif (Vacation) Court, Tuticorin District, seeking for the relief of permanent injunction against the private respondents herein, where, he could not obtain any order. The trial Court has ordered notice on 13.05.2015, which is still pending. Immediately, on 20.06.2015, he approached this Court and got an order of interim stay. It is pertinent to note that either in the Writ Petition or in his subsequent counter affidavit dated 01.06.2015, there is not even a whisper about the suit pending on the very same issue. The petitioner cannot pursue his remedy simultaneously. Therefore, Prima facie, he has not filed this Writ Petition with clean hands - As rightly averred in the counter affidavit of the Customs, if any of the parties prove their claim by producing the original Bill of Lading and other materials to claim the cargo, the authorities are duty bound to release the same, since the goods are perishable in nature. If the owners of the goods is stalled to claim the goods before the Customs authorities, unnecessarily, demurrage charges will be levied by the Customs authorities for no fault of the real owner. - Decided against assessee.

Issues:
1. Writ of Mandamus for delivery of consignments of Raw Cashew Nuts.
2. Dispute over cargo ownership and clearance process.
3. Locus standi of petitioner to file the Writ Petition.
4. Non-cooperation of petitioner affecting cargo clearance process.
5. Disputed contractual obligations between parties.
6. Disputed questions of facts and ownership of goods.
7. Authority's duty to release goods upon proof of ownership.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to deliver Raw Cashew Nuts consignments to him within an extended time limit. The petitioner expressed concerns about potential transfer of cargo to a third party or auctioning, leading to the Writ Petition.

2. The dispute arose from the cargo ownership and clearance process. The petitioner failed to submit the original Bill of Lading, leading to concerns about cargo transfer. The Court noted the contractual obligations between parties and the perishable nature of the goods, emphasizing the need for proof of ownership for cargo release.

3. The locus standi of the petitioner to file the Writ Petition was challenged, as the fourth respondent claimed to be the actual purchaser. The Court highlighted the ongoing legal proceedings at the District Court and emphasized the need for clean hands in pursuing remedies simultaneously.

4. The non-cooperation of the petitioner in submitting required documents hindered the cargo clearance process, leading to demurrage charges. The Court noted the importance of timely submission of necessary paperwork for cargo release.

5. The judgment addressed disputed contractual obligations between parties, emphasizing that such disputes fall outside the purview of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court highlighted the limitations in adjudicating contractual matters through a Writ petition.

6. Disputed questions of facts and ownership of goods were raised, with the Court emphasizing the duty of authorities to release goods upon proof of ownership. The Court highlighted the potential consequences of stalling ownership claims, leading to demurrage charges.

7. The judgment dismissed the Writ Petition, citing lack of merit in the petitioner's contentions. The Court emphasized the need for proof of ownership for cargo release and closed the connected miscellaneous petition without costs.

← Previous Next →