HYDER ENTERPRISES AND ORS. Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES (CITY) AND ORS.
LAWS(MAD)-1982-9-56
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on September 23,1982

Hyder Enterprises And Ors. Appellant
VERSUS
The Deputy Commissioner Of Civil Supplies (City) And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

E. Padmanabhan, J. - (1.) A batch of seven Writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. The Petitioners are all importers of palmolien and palm oil. For the purpose of this, case I shall set out the facts in Writ Petition No. 4604 of 1981 wherein the Petitioners are M/s. Hyder Enterprises, Madras. Till 2nd December 1978. the Government of India allowed free import of RBD palmolien and palm oil under open general License basis. On 2nd December 1978, the Government of India issued a notification canalising the importation of palmolien and palm oil through the state Trading Corporation. However the Government provided for the issue of import licence to such of those traders who had entered into firm contracts with foreign suppliers before 2nd December 1978 the date of the notifications. Accordingly, all the Petitioners herein obtained import licence in December 1979 and January, 1980. The Petitioners accordingly entered into agreements with their sister concerns who are the Petitioners in the other writ petitions. Under the said agreement the Petitioners had to provide the necessary finance for the import of goods from a broad either on letters of creditor documents against payment basis. Further, the Petitioners had the authority to sell the goods after the clearance of the same from the customs and out of the sale proceeds, all the amounts financed by the Petitioners were to be adjusted, and remittance had to be made to the foreign supplier against the letters of credit, D.P. or D.A. Out of the net profits Petitioners were to be paid 92 1/2 percent and the sister concern were to be paid 7 1/2 per cent. Accordingly, the Petitioners imported consignments of palmolien and palmoil on document against payment basis. The goods reached Madras between March and April, 1980. Since the validity of the licence was only 60 days, according to the Petitioners, they had to import all the goods. The foreign suppliers sent the documents including the invoice insurance certificates, the original till of lading through their bankers, the Lakshmi Commercial Bank Ltd. They had given an undertaking to the foreign bankers that only as and when payments are made the goods will be released by them. The goods were stored in the various godowns of the Petitioners viz. (1) 16, Pattinathar Koil St., Tiruvottiyur, (1) 631, I.A. Muttakadu Road, Nilankarai, Thuvanmiyur, (3) Andiappa Gramni St., Royapuram Madras,(4) 13, Davidson St. Madras and (5) 211, Ennore High Road, Madras though the goods were kept in the godowns of the Petitioners, they were under the custody of the Lakshmi Commercial Bank, the second Respondent, who are trustees of the foreign bankers. The Petitioners could obtain delivery orders from the bank only after paying the money therefore. While so, on 16th June, 1980 the officials of Anti Hoarding Cell of Civil Supplies, C.I.D. Madras, visited the godown at Andiappa Gramani Street, Royapuram and asked for the import licence. They were told by the representatives of the Petitioners present on the spot the licences were available at the place of business viz., at 64, Thathamuthiappan Street, G.T. Madras. However, the officials seized 3,750 barrels and allowed the goods to remain at the godown, On the same day, the officials visited the godown at 16, Pattinathar Koil Street and seized 10.747 barrels. 129806 M.T. were seized on 20th June, 1980 from 13, Davidson Street, Madrse 962, 670 M.T. were seized on 21st June, 1980 from 631, LA. Mutthukadu Road, Nilankarai, Tiruvanmiyur, while 10,611 tins of RBD palm oil were seized from 211, Ennore High Road, Madras on 16th July, 1980.
(2.) On 22nd December 1960 the first Respondent, the Deputy Commissioner (City) Civil Supplies issued a show -cause notice to the Petitioners calling upon them to show -cause why the goods seized from the various godowns of the Petitioners should not be confiscated under Sec. 6 -A of the Essential Commodities Act. The writ petition has been filed to quash the show -cause notice and for further directions being issued to the first Respondent not to proceed further pursuant to the show -cause notice.
(3.) Before considering the case of the Petitioners it is necessary to state that the police filed petitions before the sixteenth Metropolitan Magistrate, G.T. Madras and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chingleput for permission to sell the goods and obtained order directing the sale of the goods through public auction. The Petitioners then filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 3142 and 4254 of 1980 before the respective Magistrate for setting aside he orders. They also filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 3343 and 3344 of 1980 before the High Court for permission to sell the goods and deposit the amounts with the second Respondent, Lakshmi Commercial Bank Ltd., Madras. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 3343 and 3344 of 1980 were heard by a Bench of this Court. The learned Judges permitted the Petitioners to sell the goods and deposit the amount with the second Respondent. Subsequently, the second Respondent filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 6455 and 6556 of 1980 before this Court. The same Bench passed a consent order after bearing the learned Counsel for the second Respondent, the Petitioners and the public Prosecutor, and the Counsel for the other Respondents. The learned Judges directed that 10 per cent of the amount deposited by the Petitioners with the bank till then be kept unappropriated and the balance of 90 per cent may be appropriated by the bank towards the amount due to the foreign banks and transmit it to them. A regards the 10 per cent allowed to be retained unappropriated was stated that the said amount would continue to be with the bank for the purpose of satisfying any orders that would be passed in proceedings under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The order was passed by this Court without reference to either factual or legal contentions raised by the respective parties. Pursuant to the order of the Bench, the second Respondent has already appropriated 90 percent of the sale proceeds deposited with them by the Petitioners.;


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