UNITED BANK OF INDIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the United Bank of India Ltd. against the judgment of Sinha, J. by which he refused the appellants' application for a writ in the nature of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The facts which are material for the purpose of this appeal are as follows :-

(2.) One Messrs. M. James Canterbury & Co., of No. 10, Convent Road, Entally, Calcutta, were the owners of large quantities of non-duty paid tobacco which were stored in their Bonded warehouse in Entally. On August 19, 1944 the said Messrs. M. James Canterbury & Co. executed cash credit hypothecation agreement in favour of the Comilla United Bank Ltd., the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant bank, by which the bank agreed to advance money on an overdraft account on the security of the tobacco lying in the warehouse in Entally. Under the agreement the appellants became the pledgees of the goods lying in the aforesaid warehouse. It appears that towards the end of 1946 the pledgors (M/s. M. James Canterbury & Co.) went away to Pakistan without making any arrangement of the goods lying in their Entally warehouse and leaving an overdraft of about Rs. 60,000. On January 12, 1949 the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants wrote a letter to the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, stating that the goods which were in the warehouse at Entally had been removed to their own godown for the protection of their own interest under the supervision of the Deputy Superintendent, Central Excise, Sealdah Circle, and asked for permission to sell the goods for realization of their dues on getting a warehouse licence. This licence was granted to the appellants predecessor on their execution a bond for Rs. 4,000/- for the observance of all the provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 .

(3.) It appears that the appellants made some unsuccessful attempts to sell the tobacco which was stored in their own godowns. On the 27th of December, 1949, the Excise authorities serve two notices upon the appellants demanding payment of Rs. 12,225-0-0 and Rs. 34,317-12-0 as duty upon 1,630 lbs. and 45,757 lbs. of non-duty paid tobacco for the appellants' failure to remove them from the warehouse within three years from the date when they were first warehoused. This was alleged to be violation of Rules 145 and 160 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.