LAWS(BOM)-1988-1-1

MANSINGKA INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On January 15, 1988
MANSINGKA INDUSTRIES LTD. Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Mr. Desai for the appellants. We have heard Mr. Pochkhanawala for the 2nd respondent. No one has at any stage of the hearing of this appeal today appeared on behalf of the 1st respondent, which is the principal respondent. We are told that Mr. Bulchandani is briefed for the 1st respondent but is on his legs in another court. No explanation, however, unacceptable is vouchsafed for the favour of the 1st respondent's advocate on record to appear.

(2.) The appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned judge on the notice of motion taken out by the appellants. The learned judge refused relief on the notice of motion.

(3.) The appellants entered into an agreement with the 2nd respondent for the purchase of edible oils imported by the 2nd respondent on the basis of allocations made by the 1st respondent for the purposes of manufacturing vanaspati at their factory at Pachora in the State of Maharashtra. On 30th June 1986, the 2nd respondent informed the appellants that, under instructions from the Directorate of Vanaspati, all deliveries of oil to the appellants were suspended with the immediate effect. On 1st July 1986 the 2nd respondent informed the appellants that it has been brought to its notice that the appellants had sold oil contained in 72 lorries to different parties in the Bombay market in contravention of the terms and conditions of the agreement and the Import Trade Control Policy. The appellants controverted the allegations and referred to documents in order to establish that this oil had, in fact, reached their factory at Pachora. In July 1986 officers of the Directorate of Vanaspati, Oil and Fats made inquiries with the appellants. On 1st August 1986 an order was issued by the 1st respondent in respect of the allocation of imported oil to the vanaspati industry for the month of August 1986. Thereunder, an allocation of 911 metric tones of oil was made to the appellants. However, the delivery of this allotment was not made to the appellants.