Research › Browse › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 375 (DEL)

GULAB IMPAX ENTERPRISES LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA

1998-05-08

B.K.RAMAMOORTHY

body1998
K. Ramamoorthy, J. ( 1 ) THE plaintiff have prayed for the following reliefs against the defendants:- "in the above-noted facts and circumstances of the case, it is, therefore, prayed that: a) a decree for Rs. 5,02,085. 00 (rupees five lakhs two thousand and eighty-five) be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants; b) pendente-lite and future interest be awarded @ 18% per annum from the date of suit till its realisation on the above-said amount of Rs. 5,02,085. 00 ; d) costs of the suit be awarded to the plaintiffs and against the defendants. " ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiffs, clearance of the goods for warehousing was arbitrarily delayed and the plaintiffs were put to a great loss. The plaintiffs, from the date of filing of the bill of entries on the 23rd of February, 1987 and the 28th of March, 1987, wrote to the Customs Department for clearance of goods and warehousing and there was no response at all by the Customs Department. On the 3rd of April, 1987, the plaintiffs wrote to the Collector of Customs stating that they had waived the write of issuance of show-cause notice and wanted immediate adjudication as the container s detention causing heavy demurrage charges to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed CW. 669/87 for a writ of mandamus directing the Customs Department to pass orders on the bill of entries. On the 10th of June, 1987, the plaintiffs withdrew the writ with liberty to challenge it in appeal under Section 49 of the Customs Act. The plaintiffs would refer to the various acts of omission and commission on the part of the defendants 3 to 5 and they claim of recovery of money. ( 3 ) THE plaintiffs had issued notice to the Department, through counsel, on the 6th of June, 1990 wherein they have claimed: "that our clients hereby call upon you to pay a sum of Rs. 1,53,000. 00 paid as demurrage charges, Rs. 96,285. 00 paid as warehousing charges along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of payment of the amounts till refund within the statutory period of notice failing which our clients will be constrained to take such necessary legal action as may be advised in law. 1,53,000. 00 paid as demurrage charges, Rs. 96,285. 00 paid as warehousing charges along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of payment of the amounts till refund within the statutory period of notice failing which our clients will be constrained to take such necessary legal action as may be advised in law. " ( 4 ) IN the cause of action it is stated: "that the cause of action for filing the present suit arose firstly on or about 23rd February, 1987 when the Yellow Bill of Entries were filed for warehousing the goods. The cause of action further arose when on 8th March and 11th March 1987, the plaintiffs waived notice to show cause and in spite thereof, adjudication was not done. The cause of action further arose when the plaintiffs were required illegally to pay a sum of Rs. 1,53,000. 00 (rupees one lakh and fifty-three thousand) to the Railways as demurrage and a sum of Rs. 96,285. 00 (rupees ninety-six thousand, two hundred and eighty-five) as container charges on or about 2nd July 1987 for none of their fault. The cause of action further arose when the defendants were required to pay warehousing charges of Rs. 87,800. 00 (rupees eighty-seven thousand and eight hundred) some time in the end of January/1st week of February, 1988. The cause of action further arose on 19th February 1988 when the plaintiffs requested for the refund of the amount and issuance of the detention certificate. The cause of action further arose from time to time when the letters were addressed to the Customs Department to issue the detention certificate. The cause of action further arose when on 30th March, 1989, the detention certificate was issued by the Customs Department. The cause of action further arose when the plaintiffs on 10th April, 1989, requested the officers of defendant No. 2 to refund the amount and submitted the detention certificate. The cause of action further arose when on 26th May 1989, the plaintiffs were informed that their request for waiver of refund of ground rent has been regretted. The cause of action further arose when the plaintiffs, on 26th July 1989, submitted the detailed representation to the Chief Marketing Superintendent, as desired by him, and the cause of action further arose when the said representation was rejected on 21st August 1989. The cause of action further arose when the plaintiffs, on 26th July 1989, submitted the detailed representation to the Chief Marketing Superintendent, as desired by him, and the cause of action further arose when the said representation was rejected on 21st August 1989. The cause of action thereafter arose when the plaintiffs, on 21st May 1990, filed a writ petition which was dismissed as not framed on 26th May 1990. The cause of action is a continuing one. " ( 5 ) THE defendants 1 and 2 had filed the written statement refuting the claim of the plaintiffs. They stated that the claim is barred under Section 15 and 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The plaintiffs filed the replication refuting the claims of defendants 1 and 2 submitted that provisions of Sections 15 and 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 did not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. ( 6 ) DEFENDANTS 3 to 5 had not filed any written statement. When the matter came up before this Court on the 14th of August, 1996, I put a question to the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, Mr. J. P. Gupta, whether the plaintiffs can make any claim against defendants 3 to 5 in the light of provisions of Section 155 of the Customs Act, 1962 and he wanted time to look into the matter. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs prayed for time to take instructions from the clients on the 18th of November, 1996 and when the matter was posted on the 24th of February, 1997, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs did not advance any arguments and the judgment was reserved in this case. ( 7 ) THE relevant provisions of Sections 13 and 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal are as under:- "13. ( 7 ) THE relevant provisions of Sections 13 and 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal are as under:- "13. Jurisdiction, power and authority of Claims Tribunal.-- (1) The claims Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all such jurisdiction, powers and authority, as were exercisable immediately before that day by any civil court or a Claims Commissioner appointed under the provisions of the Railways Act.-- (a) relating to the responsibility of the railway administrations as carriers under Chapter, VII of the Railways Act in respect of claims for-- (i) compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railway; (ii) compensation payable under section 82 A of the Railways Act or the rules made thereunder; and (b) in respect of the claims for refund of fares or part thereof or for refund of any freight paid in respect of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration to be carried by railway. (2) The provisions of the Railways Act and the rules made thereunder shall, so far as may be, be applicable to the inquiring into or determining, any claims by the Claims Tribunal under this Act. 15. Bar of jurisdiction.--On and from the appointed day, no court or other authority shall have, or be entitled to exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to the matters referred to in sub-section (1) of section 13. " On this ground, the suit is liable to be dismissed. ( 8 ) SECTION 155 of the Customs Act would also bar the suit filed by the plaintiffs. That provision reads as under:- "protection of action taken under the Act.-- (1) No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Central Government or any officer of the Government or a local authority for anything which is done or intended to be done in good faith, in pursuance of this Act or the rules or regulations. (2 ). (2 ). No proceeding other than a suit shall be commenced against the Central Government or any officer of the Government or a local authority for anything purporting to be done in pursuance of this Act without giving the Central Government or such officer a month s previous notice in writing of the intended proceeding and of the cause thereof, or after the expiration of three months from the accrual of such cause. " ( 9 ) THERE are no allegations in the plaint from which it could be said that the authorities concerned did not act in good faith. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed because of the statutory bar. Accordingly, the suit stands dismissed. ( 10 ) THERE shall be a decree directing the dismissal of the suit. ( 11 ) THE parties shall bear their respective costs.