* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

LPA 446/2003

Reserved on : 27.08.2008

%

Date of decision:22.09.2008

M/s CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORP. & ANR. ….. …..APPELLANTS

Through: Mr.K.K.Tyagi, Advocate.

M/s BHARTIYA PLASTIC UDGYOG & ORS .. .. ...RESPONDENTS

Through:

Mr. Kamal Mehta, Advocate for R-1 and R-2.

None for R-3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG

1.

Whether the Reporters of local papers

may be allowed to see the judgment?

Yes

2.

To be referred to Reporter or not?

Yes

3.

Whether the judgment should be

reported in the Digest?

Yes

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

1.

The refusal by the appellant to deliver the subsequent

consignment to respondent nos.1 and 2 on account of a

dispute about the non payment of warehousing charges for

the first consignment had given rise to the present

litigation. It is an undisputed fact that there was no

controversy of any alleged dues in respect of the second

consignment.

A

connected

question

arising

for

consideration is whether such detention was possible even

if the consignment was warehoused without the consent of

the consignee to the warehousing corporation.

2.

The respondent no.1 imported acrylic scrap in pursuance to

a bill of entry dated 29.10.1992 in three containers of a

declared value of USD 240 per metric ton. However, on

their import into India, the custom authorities assessed the

price of the goods at USD 475 per metric ton resulting in

notices being issued by custom authorities for adjudication.

The goods were not cleared and were warehoused with the

appellant. It is during the pendency of this dispute that a

second consignment of respondent no.1 vide a bill of entry

dated 06.09.1993 was received in India. The bill of entry

was presented for home consumption and on inspection of

the goods, the custom authorities assessed the total duty of

Rs.5,41,016/- which was duly deposited on 17.09.1993.

The delivery of the goods was, however, not given to the

petitioner by the appellant on the ground that a sum of

Rs.1,60,000/- was due to the appellant as warehousing and

insurance charges in respect of the first consignment as on

17.09.1993. The same was the fate of yet another

consignment imported by the respondent no.1 vide a bill of

entry dated 03.08.1993.

3.

These actions of the appellant resulted in filing of

WP(C)4480/1993 by respondent nos.1 & 2, respondent

no.2 being the Managing Director of respondent no.1.

4.

In the proceedings of the said writ petition, interim orders

were passed on 05.11.1993 on account of the Court

observing that prima facie it was of the view that the

respondent nos.1 was not liable to pay the storage charges

of the appellant, but respondent no.1 agreed to furnish the

bank guarantee for the amount claimed by the appellant.

The second consignment was thus directed to be released

by the appellant without payment of any further charges.

Insofar as the third consignment was concerned, a direction

was passed that respondent no.1 could get it cleared on

payment of the custom duty (which was stated to have

been paid) and warehousing charges till date of delivery.

Respondent no.1 took delivery of the four containers

covered by the second consignment, but insofar as the

third consignment was concerned, respondent no.1 was not

agreeable to pay the warehousing charges on the ground

that the goods were not warehoused by the respondent

no.1 but were detained by the appellant of their own

because of non payment of warehousing and insurance

charges of the first consignment. It is in this context that

the question arose whether the appellant at all could have

detained the third consignment even assuming that they

were entitled to detain any subsequen