ASRINDIAPVT.LTD v. PetitionerThrough: Mr.TejPratap&Ms.Illashree,Ad
Judgment
W.P.(C)11398/2025Page1of4$~38*INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI+W.P.(C)11398/2025ASRINDIAPVT.LTD......PetitionerThrough:Mr.TejPratap&Ms.Illashree, Advs.versusCOMMISSIONEROFCUSTOMSANDORS.....RespondentsThrough:Mr.AakarshSrivastava, SSCforR-1.Mr.VarunParasharandMs.RidhiKapoorforRespondentNo.4.CORAM:JUSTICEPRATHIBAM.SINGHJUSTICERENUBHATNAGARORDER%24.11.20251.Thishearinghasbeendonethroughhybridmode.2.ThepresentpetitionhasbeenfiledbythePetitioner-ASRIndiaPvt. Ltd.underArticle226oftheConstitutionofIndia, interalia, seekingreleaseofsixcontainersbearingNos.CCLU3592121,CLHU2162574,CLHU3402113,CMAU1101216,GATU1270925,TEXU3989142,detainedattheICD,PatparganjandICDPatliPort, GurgaonbytheCustomsDepartment.3.ThebriefbackgroundofthecaseisthatcertaingoodsarestatedtohavebeenexportedusingtheabovementionedcontainersbyRespondentNo.4throughRespondentNo.3i.e.theShippingAgent. ThedetainedcontainersbelongtothePetitioner. However, thesecontainersappeartohavebeenseizedbytheCustomsDepartmentinrespectofcertainproceedingswhichtheCustomsDepartmentmayhaveinitiatedagainstRespondentNos.3and4andtilldate, thesamearelyingattheICDoftheCustomsDepartment.4.ThegrievanceofthePetitioneristhatdetentiontookplaceintheyear2020andtilldate, thecontainersarenotbeingreleasedbytheCustoms This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/11/2025 at 15:33:10 W.P.(C)11398/2025Page2of4Department.5.On7thAugust,2025,Mr.Srivastava, ld. SeniorStandingCounselwasdirectedtoseekinstructionsinthefollowingterms:“6.Bethatasitmay, consideringthefactthatthesixcontainersarestatedtobelocatedcurrentlyatICD,PatparganjandICDPatliPort, Gurgaon, letMr.Srivastava, ld.SSCseeksinstructionsinrespectofreleaseofthesecontainersasthesamecannotbedetainedindefinitelybytheCustomsDepartment.”6.AnaffidavithasnowbeenfiledonbehalfofRespondentNos.1and2,statingthattherehasbeennoillegaldetention/seizureofthecontainersbyRespondentNos1&2.TheonlyreasonthatthecontainersarestilllyingatICDisbecausethePetitionerandRespondents3&4didnottakeanyintersestepstohavethemreleased.7.ItistodaysubmittedthatRespondentNos.1&2havenoobjectioninlettingthePetitionertakebackitscontainers, subjecttograntofNOCfromtheDRI,GandhidhamandthePetitionercomplyingwithallformalitiesmandatedasperlaw.Mr.AakarshSrivastava, ld.SSChasalsohandedoveraletterdated30thOctober,2025issuedbytheDeputyDirector, DRI,Gandhidham, whichstatesasunder: This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/11/2025 at 15:33:10 W.P.(C)11398/2025Page3of48.Ontheotherhand, Mr.VarunParashar, ld. CounselappearsforRespondentNo.3,submitsuponbeingqueriedthathehasnoresponseastowhyhisclientdidnotclearthegoods.9.Accordingly, intermsofthesubmissionsmadebyld. CounselforRespondentNo.1&2,asalsotheabovestatedletterdated30thOctober,2025issuedbytheDRI,Gandhidham, letallthesixcontainersbereleasedtothePetitioner. InsofarasanydisputethatmayarisebetweenPetitionerandprivateRespondentsareconcerned, thesamearenotthesubjectmatterofthiswritpetitionsandarenotbeingconsideredbythisCourt. InsofarastheremediesofthePetitioneragainstanyoftheprivateRespondentsareconcerned, thesameareleftopentobeavailedofinaccordancewithlaw.10.Letthereleaseofthecontainersbeeffectedwithinaperiodoftwoweeks, subjecttocompletionofformalities. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/11/2025 at 15:33:10 W.P.(C)11398/2025Page4of411.Petitionisdisposedofintheseterms. Allpendingapplications, ifany, arealsodisposedof.PRATHIBAM.SINGH,J.RENUBHATNAGAR,J.NOVEMBER24,2025Rahul/ss
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.