SAHAJ IMPEX Vs. BALMER LAWRIE & CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.B. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. None has appeared for respondent No. 1 though in terms of registry's note dated 08.01.2021, respondent No.1 has been duly served as per bailiff report dated 21.12.2020.

(2.) Before proceeding further, we may mention that in this case, notice was issued as far back on 10.02.2020. In the order dated 13.03.2020, this Court noted that though the respondents are situated at Navi Mumbai and Raigad, notices had not been received yet. Registry was directed to take necessary steps to ensure service of notice. Subsequently, in the proceedings held on 05.11.2020, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 while respondent No. 1 continued to remain unrepresented. It was made clear that if respondent No.1 had been served but continued to remain unrepresented, Court would proceed with the hearing. On subsequent dates, registry was directed to serve notice upon respondent No. 1 and thereafter to put up service report. It is in these circumstances that registry put up a note on 08.01.2021 stating that as per the report of bailiff dated 21.12.2020, respondent No. 1 was duly served.

(3.) By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to release the container No. TTNU9895081 containing the imported goods of the petitioner declared vide bill of entry No. 7540462 dated 07.08.2018 without paying rent, demurrage and other charges for re-export as per customs order dated 28.11.2018.