9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 888X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n dispute. Respondent is not solely at fault and responsible for loss of goods as alleged by Petitioner, whereas we find that Petitioner is also partially responsible - Petitioner should and must have sold goods by availing the release as soon as provisional release order was passed. Thus, we find that Petitioner and Respondent must equally bear loss of value of goods. Petitioner is entitled to 50% of value of goods, as aforesaid determined, which are lying in the factory premises of the Petitioner. The Respondent shall refund in cash 50% of value of goods within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to payment of interest at the rate of 9% on the aforesaid amount due f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ond value. The Petitioner preferred CWP No. 9176 of 2016 challenging said conditions of provisional release and this Court vide order dated 13.06.2016 modified conditions of provisional release. 3. Mr. Bansal, counsel for the Petitioner contended that on account of seizure and delayed release, the goods in question expired. There was expiry date of seized goods and on account of seizure, the season for sale was over and before the next season goods became unfit for sale. The Petitioner to avoid rent after seeking permission from Respondent shifted seized goods from godown to factory and as on today are lying in the factory. The Petitioner could not sell goods worth MRP ₹ 3.2 Crore and Respondent is a responsible for the loss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petitioner subject to liability of goods to confiscation will be entitled to payment of value of goods. 6. In our considered view, the Respondent is not solely at fault and responsible for loss of goods as alleged by Petitioner, whereas we find that Petitioner is also partially responsible. The Respondent like in the case of Grosons Marketing (Supra) cannot be made liable to pay full value of the goods as Petitioner to some extent is responsible for loss of goods. The Petitioner should and must have sold goods by availing the release as soon as provisional release order was passed. Thus, we find that Petitioner and Respondent must equally bear loss of value of goods. The Respondent issued Show Cause Notice dated 09.05.2016 for co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
