1
PGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Suit No.2544 of 2004
M & H Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. .. .. Plaintiffs
v/s.
The Court Receiver, High Court,
Bombay & ors. .. .. Defendants
Mr.Mahendra Ghelani i/by M/s.Law Charter for Plaintiffs.
Ms.P.A. Mhatre i/by M/s.Thakore Jariwala & Associates for
Defendant No.1.
Mr.S.R. Rajguru for Defendant No.3.
------
CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.
Date of reserving the judgment : 10th August, 2010
Date of pronouncing the judgment : 28th September, 2010
JUDGMENT :
1.This suit is filed for recovery of certain amounts from
the Defendants as shown in prayers (a) to (d) of the
Plaint. The suit, though filed against the seven
Defendants, has, in fact, been prosecuted only against
Defendant No.3, the Commissioner of Customs. The
Plaintiffs claim is essentially for refund of the
amount paid to the Court Receiver for goods agreed to
be sold and delivered to the Plaintiffs by the Court
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:29:27 :::
2
Receiver which could not be delivered though sold,
because the goods were not found, as Defendant No.3 had
sold them wrongfully.
2.One W.G. Forge and Allied Industries Ltd. (the Company)
had imported various goods in 1982-83 being steel
parts, bars and scrap material under various Bills of
Entry. The Company had not made payment of custom duty
thereon. The custom duty was demanded by Defendant No.
3. The goods were not released. The Company has been
ordered to be wound up by an order of this Court. The
Company had taken a loan from the Industrial Finance
Corporation of India (IFCI). IFCI filed Miscellaneous
Petition No.475 of 1984 for recovery of the amount and
for enforcing certain charge and guarantee thereon. A
Receiver came to be appointed therein on 8th October
1984.
3.The Receiver was given power to sell the movable and
immovable properties of the Company under order dated
30th October 1984. The sale was to be free from all
encumbrances as per directions passed on 5th August
1986. The Court Receiver had obtained an inventory
report of the movable and immovable properties which
were lying in the various bonded warehouses on 17th
January 1991 and thereafter on 22nd August 1997. The
Custom Authority sold the goods lying in certain bonded
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:29:27 :::
3
warehouses by auction in September 1994. The Court
Receiver offered to sell the movable properties being
the goods imported by the Company under an auction sale
on as is where is and what is basis as per the
further directions for sale passed on 27th July 1998
and 5th October 1998. The Court Receiver put up the
goods for auction in various bonded warehouses on 27th
September 2001. There was a further order to sell
certain goods specially under lot No.3 passed on 11th
September 2002. The Court Receiver invited offers for
public auction by a Public Notice on 26th September
2002.
4.Defendant No.4 and the Plaintiffs bid at the said
auction on 7th October 2002 and 9th October 2002.
Thereafter there has been an agreement between
Defendant No.4 and the Plaintiffs under which the
Plaintiffs represented the interest of Defendant No.4
and the suit is withdrawn against Defendant No.4.
5.The Court passed an order on 10th December 2002 that
the auction purchaser would not be liable for the past
liabilities of the Company. The Court Receiver
conducted sale of various goods of which he was
appointed Receiver including the goods purchased at the
auction by the Plaintiff and Defendant No.4 on 11th
December 2002. Defendant No.4 was accepted the highest
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:29:27 :::
4
bidder for Rs.65.80 Crores. The sale was confirmed in
favour of Defendant No.4. The Plaintiffs were their
nominees for lot No.3. Consequently, the Plaintiffs
were accepted by the Court Receiver as the purchaser on
24th December 2002.
6.The goods, which were to be sold under the public
notice, were as per the terms and conditions of the
Court Receiver. The terms and conditions specified
that offerers were to take inspection at the bonded
warehouses. The Plaintiffs
ig filed an undertaking in
respect of lot No.3, for which they were nominated by
Defendant No.4, with the Court Receiver on 26th March
2003. The Court Receiver handed over to the Plaintiffs
certain goods which were at the bonded warehouses at
Thane and Manpada. The Plaintiffs had not paid custom
duty on those imported goods at that time. The goods at
Goregaon were not handed over as they were reported to
be missing. The Plaintiffs came to learn for the first
time about missing bonds at Goregaon when they sought
to take delivery of the goods along with the
representative of the Court Receiver on 19th April
2003.
7.It appears that the claim of Defendant No.3 was brought
to the notice of the Court. That was the statutory
claim for payment of custom duty failed to be made by
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:29:27 :::
5
the Company at the time of the import of the goods.
The Court directed Rs.5 Crores to be set aside with the
Official Liquidator towards the claim of Defendant No.3
on 25th April 2003. It was seen that Defendant No.3
had sold the goods to recover part of the custom duty.
This was sold despite the fact that the Court Receiver
was appointed in respect of the goods being the movable
property of the Company with power to sell. On the
premise that the goods were custodia legis, the
Division Bench of this Court on 23rd June 2003 called
upon Defendant No.3 to explain the sale of the six
bonds which were reported to be sold by the Mumbai Port
Trust. Defendant No.3 tendered apology for having sold
the six bonds for Rs.47,68,437/-. The Division Bench of
this Court directed Defendant No.3 to deposit the said
amount in this Court along with interest amounting to
Rs.74,82,298/- on 30th September 2003. This was after
Defendant No.3 was allowed to appropriate the custom
duty on certain six bonds – That amount has been
deposited to the credit of this suit. These are all
admitted facts.
8.That amount is essentially claimed by both the
Plaintiffs as well as Defendant No.3.
9.Mr.Ghelani on behalf of the Plaintiffs has specifically
stated that the Plaintiffs give up all the claims other
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:29:27 :::
6
than refund of the said amount in this suit.
10.Mr.Rajguru on behalf of Defendant No.3 claims the said
amount as an adjustment towards custom duty payable in
respect of the goods under the other bonds which were
handed over by the Court Receiver to the Plaintiffs at
Thane and Manpada, etc. without payment of custom duty.
11.Upon their respective claims, the Plaintiffs have been
directed by the Division Bench of this Court on 19th
December 2003 to file a suit which is this suit.
12.Defendant No.3 is stated to have filed a claim in
January 2004 before the Official Liquidator in respect
of custom duty payable. The Plaintiffs filed this suit
in August 2004.
13.The Plaintiffs claim refund of the amount deposited to
the credit of this suit on the premise that the
Plaintiffs had made payment to the Court Receiver who
was to sell the goods to the Plaintiffs as per orders
passed in Miscellaneous Petition No.475 of 1984. The
Plaintiffs claim that the goods could not be delivered
because Defendant No.3 sold them wrongfully.
14.Defendant No.3 has accepted that the goods were sold
when they were stated to be in the custody of the Court
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:29:27 :::
7
Receiver and has, therefore, brought the amount of the
sale value of these goods to the credit of this suit.
Hence the contempt of Court in selling the goods, if
any, is purged. The real legal question that arises is
whether the Plaintiffs or Defendant No.3 has priority
over the said amount in view of their respective
claims.
15.Defendant No.3 claims the amount under the statutory
liability of the Company prior to it being wound up.
Defendant No.3 claims
ig that the liability arose the
moment the goods were imported and had to be
discharged. If that liability was not discharged,
Defendant No.3 was entitled to confiscate the goods and
sell them to recover the custom duty. Defendant No.3
would have the first statutory charge or right in
respect of such sale. Defendant No.3 claims that, in
fact, the Court Receiver could not have been appointed
in respect of the goods assessable to the custom duty
which should have been initially discharged.
Consequently, Defendant No.3 claims that even if the
Company is wound up and goes into liquidation, the
goods, which so lie confiscated by Defendant No.3,
cannot be taken to be the assets of the Company to be
sold by the Official Liquidator. Similarly Defendant
No.3 claims that the Court Receiver cannot be appointed
in respect of the goods representing such liability and
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:29:27 :::
8
hence the goods cannot be called custodia legis.
16.Mr.Rajguru on behalf of Defendant No.3 contended that
had the Court been informed of the liability of the
Company in respect of the imported goods under various
Bills of Entry in Miscellaneous Petition No.475 of
1984, the Court Receiver would not have been appointed
in respect of at least such value of the goods as would
represent the custom duty payable and remaining unpaid.
17.The Plaintiffs claim
ig is de hors the claim of
Defendant No.3. The simplicitor claim of the
Plaintiffs is that they bid at the auction. They
deposited the amount required by the Court Receiver.
They have to be delivered the goods for which they made
respective payments. They were delivered some of the
goods but not others as they were reported to be
missing as Defendant No.3 had sold them to recover
custom duty remaining unpaid.
18.The Court Receiver, who is Defendant No.1 in the suit
and against whom no relief is claimed, but who as an
officer of the Court must assist the Court, is shown to
have issued the terms and conditions of the sale dated
25th September 2002. The terms and conditions
specifically require the bidders to inspect the goods.
The goods are offered for inspection on 30th September
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:29:27 :::
9
2002, 3rd October 2002 and 4th October 2002. Clause 11
of the Terms and Conditions specifically recites that
the purchasers would be taken to have inspected the
goods. The Plaintiffs claim to have requested
inspection. However, the Plaintiffs did not inspect the
goods themselves. They could not have inspected the
goods because they were already sold. The Court
Receiver has, in all cases, put up the goods on auction
on as is where is and what is basis. Hence if they
were offered for inspection and not inspected, the
goods are sold by the Court Receiver at the risk of the
auction purchaser.
19.The Plaintiffs claim that specifically by an order
dated 10th December 2002, the Court clarified that the
purchaser would not be liable for past liabilities of
the Company. This clarification or order of the Court
must be subject to and in accordance with the law
relating to the past liabilities. If the past
liabilities are statutory liabilities, which are
required to be discharged and are not discharged, no
Court can absolve any party of any such liability. The
past liabilities, which the purchaser could be absolved
of, would be the general liabilities of the Company
itself or by the Official Liquidator on its behalf.
20.Based upon the pleadings between the parties followed
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:29:27 :::
10
by the withdrawal of the claim of the Plaintiffs
against all the Defendants except Defendant No.3 and
the aforesaid claims of the respective parties, the
following issues only remain to be considered as re-
framed on 7th July 2008:
(1) Whether the Plaintiffs prove that they are
entitled to be repaid the amount paid by them to
the Court Receiver in respect of the auction sale
conducted by the Court Receiver. – No(2) What relief, if any, are the Plaintiffs
entitled to ? – ig As per final order.
21.Consequently, the Plaintiffs claim refund of the
amount from the Court Receiver and Defendant No.3
claims adjustment in respect of custom duty payable for
the other goods purchased by the Plaintiffs in the
other bonded warehouses, the custom duty for the goods
under the six bonds purchased by the Plaintiffs being
allowed and appropriated by Defendant No.3.
22.The Plaintiffs as well as Defendant No.3 have examined
one officer each. These witnesses have been cross-
examined. The question to be determined is the
essential question of law based upon the admitted
facts. Several of these facts have been put to the
witnesses to show their admissions thereto. The
essential oral evidence is only with regard to the act
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:29:27 :::
11
of the parties with regard to the goods under the bonds
put up for the auction by the Court Receiver, sought to
be purchased by the Plaintiffs and got sold by
Defendant No.3. Inasmuch as the questions in cross-
examination relate or refer to acts of parties covered
by the law, they need not even be considered.
23.Issue No.(1) : The goods were imported by the Company
since 1982-83. The Company was liable to pay custom
duty thereon. That remained unpaid. The Court
Receiver came to be appointed in Miscellaneous Petition
No.475 of 1984. The Court Receiver conducted the sale
of various goods under various bonds lying in various
warehouses. For that sale the Court Receiver had issued
his terms and conditions. The essential term was that
the auction purchasers were to take inspection of the
goods and to purchase them on as is where is what is
basis. This is usual and has not been disputed. The
Company was ordered to be wound up. That was in a
separate proceeding.
24.The Plaintiffs must be taken to have inspected the
goods. Even if the Plaintiffs do not inspect the goods
offered for the inspection, the Plaintiffs would be
bound by the offer made. Defendant No.4 initially and
later the Plaintiffs, as the nominee of Defendant No.4,
deposited the amounts representing the purchase price
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:29:27 :::
12
as bid by them. The Plaintiffs also filed the
necessary undertaking with the Court Receiver. The
Plaintiffs could be handed over the goods only upon the
undertaking being filed and the amount being deposited.
Yet if at all the goods are not handed over, the
Plaintiffs claim for recovery and refund of the amount
paid by the Plaintiffs to the Court Receiver is only on
the essential rule of justice, equity and good
conscience. That recovery would be subject to all the
laws governing the sale of those goods. At best, the
Plaintiffs could, therefore,
ig claim under the quasi
contract with the Court Receiver under Section 70 of
the Indian Contract Act 1872 (the Act). Section 70 of
the Act runs thus:-
70. Obligation of person enjoying benefit of
non-gratuitous act.- Where a person lawfullydoes anything for another person, or delivers
anything to him, not intending to do so
gratuitously, and such other person enjoys the
benefit thereof, the latter is bound to makecompensation to the former in respect of, or to
restore, the thing so done or delivered.
The Plaintiffs claim to have lawfully paid for the
goods under the bonds. The Plaintiffs, of course, did
not intend to do so gratuitously. However, under the
contract with the Court Receiver, the Plaintiffs would
not be legally entitled to recover the amount paid by
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:29:27 :::
13
the Plaintiffs since the Plaintiffs were liable to take
inspection of the goods before depositing the purchase
price. Hence the Court Receiver cannot be taken to
have enjoyed the benefit. In fact, neither did the
IFCI, which had filed Miscellaneous Petition No.475 of
984 in which it got the Court Receiver appointed with
the power to sell. The Court Receiver, therefore,
cannot be bound to make compensation to the Plaintiffs
or to restore the amount to the Plaintiffs for the
deposit made. The Court Receiver, being the officer of
the Court, must only hold the property as directed by
the Court.
25.The claim of Defendant No.3 is that the Plaintiffs
must not be handed over the amount paid by the
Plaintiffs in respect of the sale of the goods even
otherwise validly made because Defendant No.3 has a
prior statutory claim for payment of custom duty which
was not paid on the other goods and on the other bonds
similarly imported by the Company under several Bills
of Entries which Defendant No.3 can adjust towards the
liability for payment of custom duty by the Company.
26.Upon the Plaintiffs claim relating to the knowledge
of Defendant No.3 for appointment of Court Receiver, in
the otherwise lengthy and verbose cross-examination of
the Defendants witness, the Plaintiffs Advocate has
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:29:27 :::
14
sought admissions with regard to the matters afore-
stated, which need not be repeated.
27.The only aspect with regard to which there has been
some cross-examination other than the afore-stated
aspects between the parties is with regard to the
opinion of a valuer one Kishore Parker dated 22nd
August 1997 which is stated to have been bogus and
which is admitted to have been so by the witness of
Defendant No.3. The valuer was also the Defendant
against whom the Plaintiffs have withdrawn the suit and
hence that part of the cross-examination of Defendant
No.3 cannot be considered.
28.Mr.Ghelani on behalf of the Plaintiffs has argued that
the claim of Defendant No.3 must be lodged with the
Official Liquidator and in that behalf a question has
been put to the witness of Defendant No.3, which is
answered in the affirmative. However, that question of
law must be decided on the law as is laid down, the
evidence of the witness of Defendant No.3
notwithstanding and despite such claim having been made
before the Official Liquidator.
29.Similarly the case put by the Plaintiffs Advocate to
the witness of Defendant No.3 that the Plaintiffs
claim is for refund of the goods, which could not be
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:29:27 :::
15
delivered because Defendant No.3 had wrongfully sold
them having been answered in the affirmative is of
little consequence.
30.Further stress by the Plaintiffs that despite the
claim of Rs.60 Crores by Defendant No.3, the Court had
declined such a claim and only ordered Rs.5 Crores to
be set aside with the Official Liquidator, which is
answered in the affirmative, is also subject to the law
relating to payment of custom duty, which no Civil
Court can, by its order, alter.
ig It may be mentioned
that it matters little what the Court had directed to
be set aside. The claim of Defendant No.3 must be
adjudicated upon its own merits as a question of law
and whether or not Defendant No.3 had lodged the claim
with the Official Liquidator.
31.Further a large number of questions directed to the
witness of Defendant No.3 in cross-examination upon the
goods under the six bonds being sold despite the
appointment of Court Receiver as a contemptuous act has
been sought to be undone by the unconditional apology
admittedly given and thereafter the refund of the
amount lying with the Court Receiver to one of the two
parties claiming it can be only considered as a
question of law.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:29:27 :::
16
32.Mr.Rajguru on behalf of Defendant No.3 relied upon a
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of of
Collector of Customs, Calcutta vs. Dytron (India) Ltd.,
1999 (108) ELT 342 (Calcutta), by which this case is
completely covered and the parties are bound. It is
held in that case that when goods are imported by the
Company the Custom Authorities are entitled to claim
custom duty before the goods can be sold as assets of
the Company which has subsequently gone in liquidation.
It is further held that the claim of Custom Authorities
is outside the proceedings under Sections 529, 529-A
and 530 of the Companies Act. It is, therefore, held
that until and unless the statutory dues of the Custom
Authorities are paid, the goods cannot be taken to be
available for sale to the purchasers at all. The goods
would, therefore, form a part of the assets of the
Company available for distribution by virtue of
liquidation only subject to the payment of custom duty,
interest etc. It is observed that the Custom
Authorities have a statutory right of detention and
confiscation and hence that claim would be even prior
to the claims under Sections 529-A and 530 of the
Companies Act, which would be the claims of creditors
(though preferential) in respect of sale-proceeds of
the assets of the Company sold in liquidation which are
to be determined. It is, therefore, held that the
claim of the Custom Authorities would be outside the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:29:27 :::
17
proceedings under the aforesaid sections.
In that case the Company had imported certain chemicals
prior to its liquidation. The Official Liquidator took
possession of the assets of the Company. The chemicals
were stored in Bengal bonded warehouses without payment
of custom duty. The Official Liquidator valued the
chemicals and advertised them for sale describing them
as the assets of the Company. The highest bidder made
the payment of the price. The Custom Authorities made
the application to the Court restraining the Official
Liquidator from delivering the goods to the purchaser
until and unless the custom duty was paid. The Court
observed that the goods purchased by the Company prior
to liquidation could not have been removed by the
Company from the warehouse at all without payment of
import duty and the interest accumulated thereon.
The Court considered the provisions of the Customs Act,
1962, including Section 111 relating to confiscation of
improperly imported goods by the Custom Authorities, if
they are removed from the customs area without the
required permission of the Authority. It is held that
the power of confiscation under the said section
includes the power of sale. It is further held that
violation of Section 111 of the Customs Act renders the
importer liable for penalty. Hence if the goods are
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:29:27 :::
18
removed from the warehouse without payment of custom
duty and without the permission of the Custom
Authorities, the Custom Authorities can either
confiscate the goods or collect the duty payable
thereon.
Similarly the Court considered Sections 68, 71 and 72
of the Customs Act, under which full amount of duty
chargeable under goods not removed form the warehouse
at the expiration of the period during which they are
permitted to remain
ig in the warehouse can also be
charged together with penalty, rent, interest and other
charges payable thereon. This could be under the
detention-cum-sale notice issued under Section 72(2) of
the Customs Act. In that case such a notice was not
given before the proceedings in the Company Court for
sale of the chemicals were initiated. It was held that
nevertheless statutory right of detention and
confiscation by the Custom Authorities had to be met
before the goods could be validly sold as the assets of
the Company.
33.Further the purchasers of the goods in that case were
held not to have stepped into the shoes of the Company
as far as the liability to make payment of custom duty
was concerned. It was held that the sale, if any, to
the purchasers of the chemicals in that case should
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:29:27 :::
19
have taken place only after payment of custom duty by
the Company or its representative in interest being the
Official Liquidator upon the liquidation of the
Company. The Custom Authorities were held entitled to
confiscate and sell the goods.
34.It has been argued by Mr.Rajguru that since the
Plaintiffs did not take inspection of the goods offered
by the Court Receiver, the Plaintiffs are alone to
blame for their contributory negligence. The
Plaintiffs contract with the Court Receiver was for
purchase of the bonded goods. The Plaintiffs have
claimed refund of the amount paid since the goods were
not delivered. The goods could not be delivered
because the goods were missing. They were seen to be
missing because they were sold by the Custom
Authorities. It is seen that they were sold correctly
by the Custom Authorities in satisfaction of their
statutory right thereunder which was the duty of the
Company which imported the goods to pay before the
goods could be removed from the warehouse or sold by
the Company or its representative, the Court Receiver.
In that contract the Plaintiffs were put to notice of
the goods by the offer of inspection which the
Plaintiffs failed to take. The Plaintiffs should have
taken inspection. If the Plaintiffs do not take
inspection they must be taken to have contributed to
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:29:28 :::
20
the negligence themselves. In case of negligence of a
contracting party under common law the claim of the
Plaintiff would fail even if the Defendant was at
fault. The rule of contributory negligence was
succinctly laid down by Denning, L.J. in the case of
Jones vs. Livox Quarries Ltd., (1952) 2 QB 608 at page
615, which was later approved and followed in the case
of Westwood vs. The Post Office, (1973) 3 All England
Report 184 (HL) pp. 192, 193. The rule runs thus:
Although contributory negligence does not
depend on a duty of care, it does depend on
forseeability ….
A person is guilty of contributory negligence
if he ought reasonably to have foreseen that,
if he did not act as a reasonable, prudent
man, he might be hurt himself; and in hisreckonings he must take into account the
possibility of others being careless.
(See also Moor vs. Nolan, (1960) 94 I.L.T.R. 153.)
35.Similarly in the case of Boy Andrew, (1948) A.C. 140
at 148, when both the parties were negligent and
claimed contributory negligence on the part of the
other as the cause of the accident being the collusion
of two ships the doctrine of contributory negligence
was brought into play.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:29:28 :::
21
36.Consequently, the Plaintiffs made payment of the goods
upon the premise that they had inspected the goods and
were responsible for the payment made for the sale on
as is where is what is basis. The Court Receiver,
who collected the amount as the officer of the Court on
behalf of the Petitioner, IFCI in Miscellaneous
Petition No.475 of 1984, was to account for the said
amount to that Petition. Defendant No.3, who is
statutorily entitled to confiscate and sell the goods
as custom duty was not paid thereupon. The Plaintiffs
have not disputed that the custom duty has not been
paid on the other bonded goods of the Company including
the goods withdrawn by the Plaintiffs and taken
delivery of. Defendant No.3 is, therefore, inter alia,
entitled to adjust the amount paid by the Plaintiffs as
the price of six bonds in the Goregaon warehouse for
the custom duty payable upon the other bonded goods in
Thane and Manpada.
37. In the case of D. Konda Pentiah vs. Chenchu Rangiah,
AIR 1955 Hyderabad 176 the concept of adjustment of an
earlier liability is set out and distinguished form a
set-off claimed in the Suit by the Defendant thus:-
The plea of adjustment or satisfaction premises
that the extinction of the plaintiff s claim or
satisfaction took place prior to the date on
which the defence was raised in the suit. By a
claim for set off, on the other hand, the::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:29:28 :::
22defendant prays that the Court should enter
satisfaction in respect of the plaintiff s dues
from the outstanding dues owed by the plaintiffto the defendant. It is implicit in such a plea
that the mutual indebtedness has not beenadjusted till that date and adjustment is sought
in the suit itself.
(See also State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Raja Balbhadra
Singh, AIR 1964 M.P. 231 para-4.)
38.In this case the custom duty was statutorily payable
since 1982-83 when
ig the goods were imported under
various Bills of Entry. Hence the goods were lying in
the bonded warehouses. Six bonds were admittedly sold
to the Plaintiffs and the goods were lifted by the
Plaintiffs without payment of custom duty. The
liability has arisen well prior to the Plaintiffs
claim even in the earlier application made in
Miscellaneous Petition No.475 of 1984. The amount of
custom duty could, therefore, be adjusted by Defendant
No.3.
39.In fact, the amount lying with the Court Receiver to
the credit of this suit is far less than the custom
duty payable thereon. The cross-examination on behalf
of the Plaintiffs itself suggests that Rs.60 Crores
were claimed by Defendant No.3 out of which only Rs.5
Crores were allowed to be kept aside with the Official
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:29:28 :::
23
Liquidator. This Court is not concerned with the
calculation of the exact amount of custom duty
remaining unpaid. This Suit is concerned with the
adjustment of only a part of the claim of Defendant No.
3 to the extent of Rs.74,82,298/- representing the
amount of sale of goods by Defendant NO.3 towards its
claim of custom duty recovered as such sale and brought
back into Court upon the directions of the Division
Bench of this Court to purge the contempt alleged and
for which the Plaintiff has been directed to sue.
40.Consequently, the Plaintiffs would not be entitled
to recover any part of the amount lying to the credit
of this suit.
41.Defendant No.3 would be entitled to be handed over
the amount lying to the credit of this suit along with
all accrued interest in part payment of the custom duty
payable on the goods imported by the Company prior to
its liquidation as held in Dytron s case (supra). Since
the amount is only an adjustment, it does not require
separate Court fee to be paid or any separate action in
law to be taken by Defendant No.3.
42.Hence the following order:
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:29:28 :::
24
ORDER
(i)The Plaintiffs suit is dismissed with no order as to
costs.
(ii)The Registrar/Prothonotary and Senior Master of this
Court, with whom the amount has been deposited and
invested, shall hand over the entire amount along with
all accrued interest thereon to Defendant No.3 after 6
weeks from today.
ig (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:29:28 :::
