VISAKA INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. MINERALS AND METALS TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED
LAWS(DLH)-2007-7-37
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on July 26,2007

VISAKA INDUSTRIES LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
MINERALS AND METALS TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. - (1.) The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.14,70,095.00. The plaintiff is a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The suit has been instituted by Shri K.V. Soorianarayanan, who is the Vice-President (Corporate) and Company Secretary of the plaintiff Company in pursuance to the Board resolution in his favour. Mr. K.V. Soorianarayanan has also appeared in the witness box as PW-1.
(2.) The defendant is a corporation incorporated under the Mines and Minerals Trading Corporation Act. The defendant inter alia carried on business as a canalising agent for imports in terms of the Import and Export Policy of the country. The plaintiff claims that it was engaged in the manufacture of Asbestos Cement Products with the use of Raw Asbestos which was mainly imported from other countries. Raw Asbestos was at all relevant periods one of the designated canalised items for import by the defendant. Thus all manufactures of asbestos products used to source their raw asbestos from the defendant being the sole canalising agent.
(3.) It is the case of the plaintiff that in order to find out the likely requirement of raw asbestos for a particular year, the defendant used to follow the practice that in the beginning of April every year information used to be sought in respect of the grade and price of raw material and in the month of November-December, the actual users were required to register their requirement of raw asbestos. The plaintiff used to accordingly register its requirement. The defendant used to contract with various foreign sellers for purchase of canalised item on a principal to principal basis and in turn the defendant used to enter into independent agreements with raw asbestos users like the plaintiff. The sale used to take place on high seas sales price and the defendant issued telegrams intimating the allotted quantity and used to call upon the plaintiff/actual users to pay the amount as specified in the proforma invoice. On the payment being made in pursuance to the proforma invoice, the defendant used to endorse the original bill of lading in favour of the actual user to enable it to receive the goods, pay duties, warehouse the same and arrange for Marine insurance etc. The documentation and payment of various dues used to be done before the vessel enters custom frontiers.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.