9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Auction of abandoned goods at Port of Madras. 2. Repeated rejection of petitioner's bid. 3. Authority to confirm sale and reject offers. 4. Lien over property under Indian Customs Act. 5. Petitioner's entitlement to release of goods. 6. Reasonableness of rejection of petitioner's offer. 7. Impact of repeated auction postponements on Port Trust. Analysis: 1. The petitioner participated in an auction held by the first respondent for abandoned goods at the Port of Madras. The petitioner emerged as the successful bidder for lot No. 560/90 with a bid of Rs. 10.50 lakhs. 2. Despite the petitioner's successful bid, the first respondent received higher offers from a non-existent entity, Amith Enterprises, leading to the cancellation of the auction multiple times. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the proceedings of the Port Trust dated 24-11-1994 and requested the release of the goods upon payment of Rs. 12 lakhs. 3. The first respondent contended that the third respondent, appointed as auctioneer, had no authority to confirm the sale, and the first respondent had the exclusive right to accept or reject offers. The approval of the third respondent depended on satisfying the charges due to them, and the petitioner's offer had not been accepted by the first respondent. 4. The third respondent, while not confirming the sale, highlighted their lien over the property under Section 150(2)(c) of the Indian Customs Act. They clarified that they were recommending authorities, and the ultimate acceptance or refusal of offers rested with the first respondent. 5. The main issue was whether the proceedings dated 24-11-1994 should be set aside, and whether the petitioner was entitled to the release of goods based on the confirmation passed by the third respondent. 6. The petitioner argued that the repeated rejection of their bids, despite being the highest bidder on multiple occasions, was unjustified. They questioned the validity of the offers from Amith Enterprises, a non-existent firm, and emphasized that the first respondent should have accepted their bid. 7. The first respondent defended their right to reject offers without providing reasons, citing the tender conditions. However, the court scrutinized the history of auctions and price reductions, questioning the reasonableness of continuously lowering the upset price, leading to losses for the Port Trust. 8. The court emphasized the need for reasonableness in exercising auction powers, especially considering the impact of repeated auction postponements on the value of goods. Despite acknowledging the first respondent's discretion to reject offers, the court condemned the arbitrary rejection of the petitioner's bid and dismissed the writ petition without costs.
|
