M/s. Rushrikh Investment Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India & Ors.

M/s. Rushrikh Investment Pvt. Ltd. versus Union of India and others ..... ..Petitioner. ..Respondents. Mr. Vivek Kantawala with Ms. Bhairavi Warvedekar i/b M/s. Vivek Kantawala and Co. for the Petitioner. Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly for the Respondents. ...... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. 18 July 2011. P.C. : The Petitioner has a license agreement with M/s. Champagne Indage Limited in respect of certain premises which have been allowed by the Customs authorities to be used as a bonded warehouse. According to the Petitioner the term of the licence has ended. Possession has not been handed over to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has remedies available in law to pursue its claim for eviction against the licensee. The licensee has not been impleaded as a party to these proceedings. An order of winding up was passed against the licensee, which the Court is informed, has been stayed in appeal. The fact that the licensed premises were permitted to be utilized by the Customs authorities as a Customs Bonded Warehouse cannot furnish a justification to the Petitioner to seek a writ of mandamus directing the Customs authorities to initiate action under PNP 2 WP4753-18.7.sxw Chapter 9 of the Customs Act 1962. The Customs authorities are independently entitled to take recourse to their rights under Chapter

Nothing contained in this order would preclude them from exercising those rights in accordance with law. However, such a direction cannot be granted to the Customs authorities at the behest of the Petitioner who as a licensor would have to follow remedies which are available in law to seek possession of the premises. The Petition is accordingly dismissed. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) (Anoop V. Mohta J.)