Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2025 DIGILAW 892 (SC)

Pil (India) Private Limited v. Vinod Kumar Jain

2025-04-02

B.V.NAGARATHNA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2025
ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the orders passed by the High Court at Calcutta in CC/8/2022 being a contempt proceeding initiated by the first respondent as against the officers of the respondent(s)-Department, namely, the Customs Department. The three impugned orders are dated 17.02.2022, 04.03.2022 and 18.04.2022. 3. We have heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and learned senior counsel for the first respondent and learned counsel for the respondent(s)-officers of the Customs Department and perused the material on record. 4. During the course of submissions, it was pointed out by learned senior counsel for the appellant that certain portions of the orders dated 17.02.2022, 04.03.2022 and the order dated 18.04.2022 ought to be set aside by this court inasmuch as the appellant herein is aggrieved by the observations and directions issued by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under the Contempt Of Courts Act. He submitted that the appellant herein was not a party to the original proceeding out of which the contempt proceedings have arisen. The original proceedings were between the first respondent and the respondent(s)-Customs Department. However, in the course of the contempt proceeding, the rights of the appellant herein vis-a-vis the first respondent have been determined which is wholly extraneous to the contempt proceedings. 5. Learned senior counsel submitted that under contempt jurisdiction, there could not have been determination of the rights of the appellant herein vis-a-vis the first respondent herein particularly, in the absence of the appellant being impleaded as a party to the contempt proceedings. In the circumstances, it was submitted that the following may be set aside: (i) In the order dated 17.02.2022; 'We also note that the department has not issued the detention certificate for waiver of detention charges and other charges and it appears that only for a partial period such certificate has been issued. The department should not frustrate the order and direction issued in our judgment and order dated 24.11.2021, more particularly, when the department has not preferred any appeal against our judgment and the same has attained finality. Therefore, the department is directed to issue detention certificate for the entire period of detention, that is, till the goods are released in terms of the direction issued earlier.' (ii) In the order dated 04.03.2022: 'Regulation 10 of the said regulation deals with responsibility of the authorised carrier under the regulations. Therefore, the department is directed to issue detention certificate for the entire period of detention, that is, till the goods are released in terms of the direction issued earlier.' (ii) In the order dated 04.03.2022: 'Regulation 10 of the said regulation deals with responsibility of the authorised carrier under the regulations. Clause (1) of Regulation 10(1) states that an authorised carrier shall not demand any container detention charges for the containers laden with the goods detained by customs for the purpose of verifying the entries made under Section 46 or Section 50 of the Act, if the entries are found to be correct. ... Thus, the statutory regulations clearly provide for waiver of these charges which the petitioner cannot be compelled to pay. In the instant case the CFS/Shipping Line have not complied with the requirements that they are to fulfil pursuant to issuance of detention certificate. The question would be is the respondent/department powerless or can it be said that they will be a mute spectator to the non-compliance of their directions by the CFS/Shipping Line. The answer to this question lies in 2018-2019 Regulations wherein under Regulation 11 provides for action being taken for suspension of operations or revocation of registration of an authorised carrier. In the 2019 Regulations under Regulation 11 similar power has been provided. It is not for this Court to inform the respondent/department as to what the powers are under the statutory regulations. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/contemnor would submit that appropriate direction may be issued. The Court fails to understand as to why directions are to be issued to the department to exercise their power under the statutory regulation. If they fail to do so the Court can draw adverse inference against them and also come to a conclusion that the department is trying to indirectly make the order and direction by this Court unworkable. If the same is established, then the officials of the department are liable for contempt. We find that CFS and the shipping line are not parties to this application. Therefore, we grant liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate steps in this regard. If the same is established, then the officials of the department are liable for contempt. We find that CFS and the shipping line are not parties to this application. Therefore, we grant liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate steps in this regard. In the meantime, we leave it to the respondent/department to sort out the issues, failing which the Court may be constrained to draw adverse inference and pass stringent orders.' (iii) The entire order dated 18.04.2022 which has determined the rights of the appellant herein vis-a-vis the first respondent. 6. This is inasmuch as the said adjudication in a contempt jurisdiction was firstly, wholly unnecessary and secondly, an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction; that the contempt petition was filed by the first respondent herein against the officers of the respondent-Customs department. But, while determining as to, whether, there was any wilful contempt committed by the respondent(s)-officers, the rights of the appellant herein, who are the shipping line (carrier of the goods), could not have been determined. 7. In the circumstances, learned senior counsel submitted that the aforesaid portions of the impugned orders dated 17.02.2022 and 04.03.2022 and order dated 18.04.2022 are liable to be set aside. 8. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the first respondent contended that although the contempt proceedings were initiated against the Officers of the respondent(s)-Customs Department, the fact remains that for a comprehensive adjudication of the rights of the first respondent herein, it was necessary that the appellant herein was also impleaded as a party and after hearing the appellant herein the directions have been issued; that since the matter has now been concluded before the High Court, at this stage, it would be wholly unnecessary for reconsidering the impugned orders inasmuch as now, the proceedings between the first respondent and the respondent(s)-Customs Department have been concluded. Learned counsel therefore, submitted that there is no merit in this appeal. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the Officers of the respondent(s)-Customs Department submitted that the controversy between the first respondent and the Department has now been concluded and therefore, the impugned orders would not in any way impact the respondent(s)-Customs Department. Learned counsel therefore, submitted that the appeal lacks merit and hence may be dismissed. 10. We have considered the arguments advanced at the bar in light of the impugned orders and the directions issued by the High Court. 11. Learned counsel therefore, submitted that the appeal lacks merit and hence may be dismissed. 10. We have considered the arguments advanced at the bar in light of the impugned orders and the directions issued by the High Court. 11. It is not in dispute that as against the order dated 24.11.2021 passed in APOT/170/2021 and OCOT NO.2 of 2021 by the Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta, certain directions were issued and the lis between the first respondent and the respondent(s)-Customs Department was concluded. It is as against the directions issued in the said order that the first respondent initiated Contempt Petition viz., CC/8/2022 before the High Court by bringing to the notice of the High Court the directions issued earlier not being complied with. It is in the course of the consideration of the said contempt petition filed by the first respondent herein that the aforesaid orders were passed which are extracted above dated 17.02.2022 and 04.03.2022. Further, by order dated 18.04.2022, the rights of the appellant herein as a shipping line as against the first respondent herein have also been determined and adjudicated upon. Consequently, the appellant is aggrieved by the directions issued in the order dated 18.04.2022. 12. We find that the impleadment of the appellant herein as a party to the Contempt Petition was not in accordance with law. Secondly, the determination of the rights of the appellant vis-a-vis the first respondent, when the first respondent has filed a contempt petition as against the officers of the respondent(s)-Customs Department, was wholly unwarranted. In the circumstances, the portions of the orders dated 17.02.2022 and 04.03.2022, extracted above, are set aside. Further, the order dated 18.04.2022 is also set aside. 13. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 14. The appellant and the first respondent are at liberty to enforce their rights, if any, in accordance with law. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.