LAWS(ORI)-2008-4-14

ASSAM TRANSPORT SERVICE Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

Decided On April 08, 2008
Assam Transport Service Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ORISSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by several petitioners of which petitioner No. 1 claims to be a citizen of India and is carrying on business under the name and style of Assam Transport Service as its own proprietor. The case of petitioner No. 1 is that, it executes orders for inter -State carriage of goods. Petitioner No. 2 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged, inter alia, in the business of buying and selling of Purified Terephthalic Acid (PTA). Petitioner No. 3 is also a company incorporated under the Companies Act, and is a manufacturer of PTA in its unit at Haldia in West Bengal, and petitioner No. 4 is the company secretary and vice president of petitioner No. 3 and a citizen of India. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners jointly as, according to them, there is a common cause of action and a common impugned order in this case.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 3, which is a manufacturer of PTA at its Haldia Plant has various customers to whom the PTA is sold and in this case there was a sale agreement between petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 3, under which petitioner No. 2 intended to purchase PTA from petitioner No. 3 for supplying/selling to polyester producers in various parts of India. By the said sale agreement dated December 8, 2005, petitioner No. 3 agreed to sell and petitioner No. 2 agreed to purchase PTA from the Haldia Plant of petitioner No. 3 in West Bengal and it is provided in the said agreement that the sale of PTA will take place at the factory gate of petitioner No. 3 at Haldia. In the said agreement it is also provided that petitioner No. 3 is to make necessary arrangement for transportation of PTA with insurance during transit from Haldia to the destination specified by petitioner No. 2 and that from the time of dispatch of PTA from the plant of petitioner No. 3 at Haldia till the delivery of the goods as specified by petitioner No. 2 all risk of loss, damage or deterioration to the goods is solely lying with and to be borne by petitioner No. 2 only. It was also provided that such transportation and insurance arrangement, if any, shall be made by petitioner No. 3 at the request of petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 2 shall bear and pay the transportation and insurance charges as invoiced by petitioner No. 3. A copy of the said agreement has been disclosed as annexure 1.

(3.) AFTER such sale at the request of petitioner No. 2, petitioner No. 3 hired the services of petitioner No. 1 for transportation of the goods from the factory of petitioner No. 3 at Haldia to the destination point, i.e., Indorama Synthetics (I) Limited at Nagpur in Maharashtra. The goods so sold were covered by eight invoices in which petitioner No. 3 was described as the consignor, petitioner No. 2 as the purchaser and Indorama Synthetics (I) Limited as the consignee. The goods were transported by petitioner No. 1 in four different trucks/lorries being Vehicle Nos. MH -06AC 0282, MH -06AC 0272, MH -06AC 0676 and MH -06AC 0609. It is stated that each of the consignments carried in a particular truck was covered by a lorry receipt and thus there were eight lorry receipts in respect of four trucks.