Reached Daily Limit?

Explore a new way of legal research!

Click Here
Bombay High CourtIndian Cases

Vikas Chemicals vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 22 September 1987

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Bombay High Court
Vikas Chemicals vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 22 September, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1988(16)ECR327(BOMBAY)
Author: S.N. Variava
Bench: S.N. Variava

S.N. Variava, J.

1. In this Petition, the Petitioners are applying for liberty to withdraw the Petition. Under normal circumstances, there would have been no further arguments.

2. However, Mr. Sethna has strenuously argued that the Petitioners have made false statements on oath an action should be taken against them for that purpose.

3. It is the submission of Mr. Sethna that in the five copies which were supplied by the Petitioners to the Respondents, the paragraph regarding jurisdiction reads as follows:

30. The Petitioner says and submits that the goods have arrived at Bombay. The clearance of the said goods have wrongfully been with-held at Bombay. The entire cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court and therefore this Honourable Court has Jurisdiction to entertain and try the present Petition.
Subsequently, by a letter dated 14th September, 1987 addressed by the Petitioners to the Respondents, wherein it is stated that incomplete copies of the Petition had earlier been sent and in the copy of Petition now sent to the Respondents, the same paragraph reads asfollows:
30. The Petitioners say and submit that the goods have arrived at Kandla. The clearance of the said goods have wrongfully been withheld at Kandla. The Petitioners are having their office at Bombay. The impact and the consequences of wrongful witholding of clearance by the Respondents of the said goods at Bombay. The Respondents No. 3 acts at the behest/guidance of Bombay authorities. In any view of the matter the part of cause of action has arisen at Bombay and Accordingly this Honourable Court has Jurisdiction to entertain and try the present petition.
4. From this Mr. Sethna has strenuously argued that the Petitioners are trying to obtain relief on false statements in the earlier paragraph and realising that they would not get away with it had sought to substitute the Petition. According to Mr. Sethna, the Petitioners were tampering with documents and that the Court should suo moto take action against the Petitioners.

5. It must be mentioned that these very same arguments had been made by Mr. Sethna on the 15th September, 1987 also, at a time when the Petition was being adjourned till today because the Respondents had handed over to the Petitioner their affidavit-in-reply very late. On the 15th itself, the Court had pointed out to Mr. Sethna that the Petition which have been filed in the Court does not contain any mis-statement in this paragraph. It was also pointed out that the same Attorney had filed six identical petitions of which this was one. In the other five Petitions, the averments in paragraph 30 are as were originally sent to the Respondents. Under these circumstances, there is not the slightest doubt in the mind of the Court that a genuine mistake had in fact occured. It is indeed strange that time of the Court was wasted on the 15th and today cm such trifling matters when day in and day out, it had been observed by the Court that the Respondents are parties who are in Petition after Petition asking for time on numerous occasions because they are not ready. More importantly, the Court has, on numerous occasions, observed that Respondents persistently do not give effect to orders of this Court, unless contempt proceedings are adopted against them. For a party like this to try and capitalize on a genuine mistake is disgraceful.

6. The other submissions of Mr. Sethna, however, have a lot of sub-stance. He points out that in the Petition, the Petitioners have made a statement that no other Petition is pending either in this Court or in any other Court. He points out that in fact in respect of these very Bill of Entries, the Petitioners had filed a Petition in the Supreme Court which had been withdrawn and that there was no reference in this Petition to those proceedings. Mr. Sethna also points out that the goods had arrived in Kandla, the Bill of Entry was filed in Kandla, the address of the Petitioners on the Bill of Entry and in the Petition is a Delhi address, the Petitioners admittedly have their Head Office in Delhi and except for a statement to the following effect “The impact and the consequence of wrongful withholding of clearance by the Respondents of the goods at Bombay” there is no averment and not shown as to how the impact and consequences are felt in. Bombay. Mr. Sethna rightly submits that the Court in any event would not have jurisdiction. Under the circumstances, Mr. Sethna is right that the Petitioners cannot be allowed to simplicitor withdraw the Petition,

7. Accordingly, the Petition stands rejected. The Petitioners will pay costs of this petition to the Respondents.