SURLUX DIAGNOSTIC LTD. Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Writ Petition the Petitioners are praying for a writ of mandamus or any writ, order or direction of that nature under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the Respondent No. 1 to withdraw the letter dated 29-5-2013 (Annexure-H to the Writ Petition).

(2.) As far as the Petitioner No. 1 is concerned, it is a public limited company and having its registered office at the address mentioned in the cause title. The Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the purchasers of a flat which belongs to the Petitioner No. 1. The Respondent No. 1 is the officer, namely, Assistant Commissioner of Customs exercising the powers under the Customs Act, 1962 whereas the Respondent No. 2 is a Cooperative Housing Society which is owner of the building. In the building there is a flat being Flat No. 58, 5th Floor, Chhadva Apartment, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400071 which is referred to as the said flat. The said flat was purchased under the Agreement for Sale dated 3-7-1986 by the Petitioner No. 1. The share certificate was issued by the Respondent No. 2 in the name of the said Petitioner. The communications at Annexures A, A1, B, C and D are relied upon to show as to how the Petitioner No. 1 acquired the said flat and has thereafter dealt with the Cooperative Housing Society inter alia in payment of maintenance charges. The Petitioner No. 1 was directed to be wound up by an order passed by this Court. However, it has been revealed that one Mr. S.K. Sarpotdar made an application to this Court and an order was made on 8-10-2012 in Company Application No. 218/2012 in Company Petition No. 275/1995. A copy of the said order at Annexure-E to this Writ Petition is relied upon to show that the learned Single Judge of this Court presiding over as a Company Judge passed an order recalling the winding up. In such circumstances the Petitioner No. 1 sold the said flat to the Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 under the Agreement for Sale dated 9-4-2013. These Petitioners made an application to the Cooperative Housing Society for transferring the share certificate in their name. The Society informed these Petitioners that there is a communication received from the Assistant Commissioner of Customs dated 29-5-2013 and on account of which the transfer cannot be effected.

(3.) The Petitioners thereafter made inquiries and they learnt that an order was passed on 30-5-2000 by the Commissioner of Customs against M/s. Surlux Mediquip Limited and its unit, namely, M/s. Surlux Medicare. In these circumstances the Petitioners took up the matter with the Respondent No. 1 and requested him to clarify that there is absolutely no order passed in the case of the Petitioner No. 1. Therefore, the communication dated 29-5-2013 should be withdrawn by him. However, there is no response to this request that is why the Petitioners have approached this Court.