Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2012
  6. /
  7. January

New vs Divisional

High Court Of Gujarat|27 July, 2012

JUDGMENT / ORDER

The Draft Amendment application filed by the learned advocate appearing for petitioner on 27th July 2012 with a request to amend the petition is granted, petitioner is permitted to amend the petition. The Amendment to be carried out forthwith.
2. Learned advocate for the respondents has placed on record an affidavit dated 27th July 2012 which is taken on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the statement annexed to the Draft Amendment has been served to the respondent on 17th April 2012. The entry at serial no. 8, which is for a sum of Rs. 7,30,700/-, is disputed by the petitioner.
4. It is claimed that the said entry does not relate to the goods imported by the petitioner. It is also claimed that the petitioner is not liable to make payment of said Rs. 7,30,700/-.
5. For the balance payment, any dispute has not been raised by the petitioner and the learned counsel for petitioner has admitted that the balance payment has to be made by the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the statement which is placed on record at page 48-D.
7. It is claimed by the petitioner that the details mentioned in the said statement have not disputed by the petitioner and from the statement, it transpires that the entry no. 8 in the statement annexed to the Draft Amendment is not found in the statement at page 48-D, which substantiates the petitioner's claim that the said amount of Rs. 7,30,700/- is not payable by the petitioner.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that in view of such discrepancies and dispute, the petitioner has made representation, which has yet not been decided.
9. On previous occasion, Mr. Pahwa, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted, after taking instructions from his client that the petitioner is ready to make further payment of Rs. 10,000,00/-, as against the demand of Rs. 14,95,020/- according to the statement annexed to the Draft Amendment, and on such payment, the respondent may release the goods (Coal) imported by the petitioner.
10. He also submitted that though according to the petitioner, the amount required to be paid by the petitioner would come to about 7,78,400/-, the petitioner is ready, without prejudice to its contentions, to pay of Rs. 10,000,00/- so as to ensure that the goods (coal) are released.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents was asked to place on record the decision said to have been taken in connection with the representation made by the petitioner on 31st January 2011 (Annexure U, Page 48-H) under an affidavit, the respondent has placed on record a communication dated 18th November 2011 and it is claimed that it is the decision on petitioner's representation, however, it does not contain any decision on the representation made by the petitioner.
12. Under the circumstances and in view of the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on previous occasion, it is to be noted that the petitioner is ready to pay Rs. 10,000,00/- without prejudice to its contentions.
13. In this background the petitioner is allowed to approach the respondent nos. 1 and 2 with a written request, to take decision on its representation in the light of the document annexed at page 48-D of the present petition and the statement annexed to the Draft Amendment as well as in the light of the remark recorded in the statement annexed to the Draft Amendment.
14. The Petitioner may also request the said authority to take into account the fact that the Goods imported by Swastik Coal Corporation Ltd. are not of the petitioner and petitioner has nothing to do with the said undertaking.
15. The petitioner shall also make the same offer i.e. to pay Rs. 10,000,00/- to the competent authority to accept the payment of Rs. 10,000,00/-, without prejudice to its contentions and to release the goods (Coal).
16. In respect of the said request the competent authority shall take necessary decision and pass a speaking order before 6th August.
17. Learned counsel for the respondents shall supply the said decision to the petitioner and it will be placed on record of the present petition on the next date of hearing.
S.O.
to 9th August 2012.
(K.M.THAKER,J.) deepak
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

New vs Divisional

Court

High Court Of Gujarat

JudgmentDate
27 July, 2012