9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (11) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner, Sri R.K. Jain, learned senior counsel for the Bombay Port Trust and Sri P.H. Parekh, learned counsel for the auction-purchaser (Respondent No. 5). 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that pending customs clearance, the goods which were held by the Port Trust, were put up by the Port Trust Authorities for sale on 22-11-1991 for the recovery of the port-charges. The sale elicited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods which fetched an offer of Rs. 32,22,000/- were knocked down in favour of Respondent No. 5 for Rs. 20,37,000/-. We do not want to go into the problems of lack of co-ordination between the Customs Authorities on the one hand and the Port Authorities on the other whether the latter could ignore the intimation of the former for deferring the sale. It would appear that the sale dated 26-5-19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of evidence of customs clearance. It is however proper that Rs. 2,03,700/- deposited by the auction-purchaser be refunded to him by the port Authorities. Respondent No. 5 will also be entitled to a solatium which we quantify at a lump sum of Rs. 30,000/- which the petitioner shall pay by means of a crossed bank draft drawn on a nationalised bank in favour of respondent No. 5 and delivered to Sri. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the motion of Sri N.D. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner. At the end of para No. 5 of our order dated 17-11-1992, the following sub-para shall be added : "The payment of the Port charges now shall be as claimed by the Port Trust. However, the petitioner is at liberty to make a claim for refund upon production of Detention Certificate. We, however, do not say anything on the merits of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
