Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 731 (KAR)

Bosch Limited v. Mysore Sales International Ltd.

2011-07-22

H.S.KEMPANNA, K.L.MANJUNATH

body2011
JUDGMENT K.L. Manjunath , J.—The appellant is challenging the legality and correctness of the dismissal of its Writ Petition by the Learned Single Judge by his order dated 28-10-2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 4688/09, in this appeal. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parries. 3. The petitioner filed the Writ Petition to issue a direction to the Respondent herein to pay a sum of Rs.2,17,76,463/- with interest at 18% p.a. on the aforesaid amount to be calculated from 12-7-2007 till the date of payment. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the goods of the petitioner was auctioned by the Respondent for the alleged violation of the provisions of the Customs Act. Contending that the goods of the appellant was wrongly auctioned without following the procedure, the Writ Petition was filed to recover the value of the goods with a request to direct the Respondent-1-MSIL, Union of India and the Commissioner of Customs to pay the same. The Learned Single Judge after hearing the parties has dismissed the petition on the ground that there are disputed questions of facts and law and the same cannot be considered in a Writ Petition and further held that considering the nature of dispute, the same has to be adjudicated in a regular civil suit. Accordingly, the petition has been dismissed on the ground that the said Writ Petition is not maintainable. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. 5. We have heard the counsel for both the parties. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that since the Customs Department has admitted its mistake committed by it there were no disputed questions of facts and law and as the goods of the appellant has been auctioned in utter violation of the Customs Act, the petition filed by the appellant before the Learned Single Judge was maintainable. 7. Per contra, the Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 contends that the Respondent-1 has never admitted the case of the appellant herein and they disputed the entire facts. According to them, goods were sold after following the procedure laid down under the provisions of the Customs Act and Rules made therein. Therefore, he contends that the order passed by the Learned Single Judge, is justified and liable to be dismissed. 8. According to them, goods were sold after following the procedure laid down under the provisions of the Customs Act and Rules made therein. Therefore, he contends that the order passed by the Learned Single Judge, is justified and liable to be dismissed. 8. Having herd the counsel for the parties, the only point that arises in this Writ Appeal is whether the Learned Single Judge has committed an error which calls for interference in an intra-court appeal. 9. Having heard the counsel for the parties, since the appellant's counsel has admitted that the 1st Respondent-MSIL is disputing the contentions urged by the appellant, we are of the opinion that the appellant cannot maintain a Writ Petition. In a case of recovery of amount with interest the remedy open to the appellant is to file a regular civil suit and it cannot invoke Article 226 of the Constitution for its redressal. Therefore, we do not see any merits in this appeal. According to us, the Learned Single Judge has not committed any error in rejecting the Writ Petition on the ground of maintainability. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. It is open for the appellant to seek his redressal in a civil court.