LAWS(APH)-2022-8-45

TATA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Decided On August 04, 2022
TATA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus for declaring the impugned order dtd. 23/11/2021 bearing R.C.No.985/2021/D3 confirming the distraint order and notice bearing R.C.No.141/2021/A dtd. 11/6/2021 as illegal and arbitrary etc.

(2.) This Court has heard Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy, Special Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 4 in the Office of the Advocate General, Sri Challa Gunaranjan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5, Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned senior counsel for respondent No.6 and Sri J.Ugra Narasimha for the implead respondent Nos. 7 to 16. I.A.No.2 of 2021 filed by the implead petitioners to implead the respondents Nos.7 to 16 to the writ petition is allowed by this order. Sri J.Ugra Narasimha was permitted to argue the matter on behalf of the respondents/farmers for whose dues the sugar was attached.

(3.) The essence of the submission of the learned Senior Counsel Sri P.Veera Reddy for the petitioner is that petitioner is the owner of the sugar, which has been distrained/ attached under the provisions of the Act for the dues of the 5th respondent. Learned senior counsel therefore argues that as the petitioner is the owner of the sugar, the respondents have committed a mistake in invoking the provisions of the Act for recovery of the sugarcane dues which are payable to the farmers. Learned Senior Counsel emphasizes that unless the title in the property/sugar remains with the 5th respondent, the proceedings cannot be taken against the same. Learned senior counsel draws the attention of this Court to the terms and conditions of the agreement dtd. 6/11/2020, in particular to clauses 2, 7, 16, 20 and 23 to argue that the title in the sugar has passed to the petitioner from respondent No.5. He points out that under the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act and in particular Sec. in 19 and 20, the petitioner has become the owner of the sugar. He also submits that they have given a Stock Management Agreement on 7/11/2020 to a company called 'DACPL 'which is the physical control of the sugar.