M. Muhamed Basheer v. Union Of India
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/29TH SRAVANA, 1937 WP(C).No.24812 of 2015 (B) -------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S):- -------------------------- M. MUHAMED BASHEER, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.M.A.MUHAMMAD, PROPRIETOR, AL-FAH-ASSOCIATES, MUTTOM, ALUVA-683 016.
BY ADV. SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR.
RESPONDENT(S):- ----------------------------
1. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FOREIGN TRADE & COMMERCE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEW DELHI-110 011.
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE, UDYOG BHAGAN , H-2ING, GATE NO.2, MOULANA AZAD ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 011.
3. GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL COMMITTEE, OFFICE OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF FOREIGN TRADE, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682030.
4. JOINT DIRECTOR OF FOREIGN TRADE, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682030.
5. DP WORLD, ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, ICCT, VALLARPADAM, SEZ, ERNAKULAM-682 082.
6. ARCLINE, 5, DUKE OF EDINBAG STREET, PORT LOUIS, MOURITIUS, REPRESENTED BY IT'S INDIAN AGENT, WEST SHIP LOGISTICS (P) LTD., LAKSHMI HOUSE, W/ ISLAND, COCHIN-682 003, REPRESENTED BY IT'S MANAGING DIRECTOR.
7. MANORAMA SALES CORPORATION, MAROTTICHODU JUNCTIION, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-682 024.
W.P.(C).NO.24812 OF 2015 - 2 -
8. ALVAND PETRO CHEMICAL COMPANY LTD., 11, 9TH FLOOR, ZAFAR STREET, TEHRAN, IRAN, PO BOX NO.84921-3591, REPRESENTEDBY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
R1 TO R4 BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL SRI.S.BIJU R6 BY ADVS. SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR SMT.KRIPA ELIZABETH MATHEWS SMT.P.F.ROSY R7 BY ADVS. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS SRI.LITTO VARGHESE PALATHINKAL.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.24812 of 2015 (B) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1 :
TRUE COPY OF THE PERFORMA INVOICE DATED 1-6-2015. EXT.P2 :
TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 15-6-2015 ISSUED BY THE SBT, ALUVA BRANCH EVIDENCE SWIFT TRANSFER TO 8TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3 :
TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT B/L ISSUED BY THE ARCLINE. EXT.P4 :
TRUE COPY OF THE B/L ISSUED BY ARC LINE DRAWN IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P5 :
TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE DATED 21-7-2015 ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P6 :
TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT/REPRESENTATIONN 12-8-2015 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 :
TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 11-8-2015 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT'S INDIAN AGENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P8:
TRUE COPY OF THE SAID PROFORMA INVOICE DATED 31.05.2015 BEARING NO.A/CHEM-01/2015 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.8.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:- ----------------------------------------- NIL.
Vku/- [ true copy ]
K. Vinod Chandran, J ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.24812 of 2015-B ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20 th day of August, 2015
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved with the fact that though a draft Bill of Lading was issued in the name of the petitioner as th respondent, the consignment, which per Exhibit P4 by the 6 has arrived at the Cochin Port, has been shipped in the name of th respondent from Bandar Abbas Port/Persian Gulf. The the 7 petitioner claims that the product is one for which the petitioner has paid 30% of the total amount as per an invoice raised by th respondent.
the 8 th respondent appears and contends that
2. The 6 Exhibit P4 is a 'Non-Negotiable Bill of Lading', issued without even the signature of the carrier which does not create any right th respondent has confirmed that original on the petitioner. The 6 th respondent for Bill of Lading was issued in the name of the 7 the cargo which has now arrived in the Cochin Port.
WP(C).No.24812 of 2015 - 2 -
3. It is pointed out that the shipper at Exhibit P3 has th not been impleaded and the dispute is between the 8 respondent-manufacturer and the petitioner, who claims to have th respondent. However, the 6 th made payments to the 8 respondent, who is the Shipping Line who carried the goods from the port of lading to the port of discharge has issued a valid Bill of th respondent.
Lading in the name of the 7
4. In such circumstances, if the petitioner has paid any money for a consignment and the petitioner is entitled to a th consignment of "Paraffin Wax" from the seller, who is the 8 respondent, then the petitioner would have to definitely take appropriate proceedings, which cannot be in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Exhibit P4 does not create any th right on the petitioner over the subject consignment. The 7 respondent on production of the original Bill of Lading, is entitled to obtain clearance and get delivery of goods. The petitioner th cannot have any claim on the subject consignment which the 6 respondent has transported from the port of discharge to the port th respondent.
of lading and has issued Bill of Lading to the 7 The writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge.
vku/- [ true copy ]