2023 (10) TMI 764 - HC - Customs

Plaintiffs win ownership of goods in Schedules A, B, C; court orders return under Sea Customs Act, Section 80 C.P.C.

Shiva Ratan Bajoria Versus Union Of India & Ors.

Shiva Ratan Bajoria Versus Union Of India & Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Ownership of goods.2. Legality of search and seizure.3. Protests against seizure.4. Wrongful refusal to release goods.5. Deprivation of goods.6. Valuation of goods.7. Damages suffered.8. Validity of notice under Section 80 of C.P.C.9. Suit maintainability under the Sea Customs Act.10. Suit maintainability against certain defendants.11. Validity of prohibitory order.12. Suit barred by specific statutory provisions.13. Reliefs entitled to plaintiffs.Issue-wise Comprehensive Details:Ownership of Goods:The court concluded that the original Plaintiffs were the owners of the articles set out in Schedule 'A', 'B', and 'C' of the plaint. The Plaintiffs successfully discharged their burden of proof through consistent and convincing oral testimonies, which were corroborative and cogent. The Defendants failed to provide concrete evidence to rebut the Plaintiffs' claims. Thus, Issue no. 1(a) and 1(b) were decided in favor of the Plaintiffs.Legality of Search and Seizure:The court refrained from deciding on the propriety of the search and seizure (Issue no. 2) and the prohibitory order (Issue no. 11), stating that the civil court in its ordinary jurisdiction cannot decide on these matters, which should be addressed in appropriate forums.Protests Against Seizure:The court found that the original Plaintiff no. 1 and 2 protested against the seizure of the goods. The testimonies of the Plaintiffs' witnesses were consistent and uncontradicted, establishing that the Plaintiffs protested the seizure. Thus, Issue no. 3(a) and (b) were decided in favor of the Plaintiffs.Wrongful Refusal to Release Goods:The court found no evidence of malice or wrongful refusal by the Defendants to release the goods. The Plaintiffs failed to establish that the Defendants acted with an oblique or indirect motive. Therefore, Issue no. 4 and 5 were decided against the Plaintiffs.Deprivation of Goods:The court concluded that the Plaintiffs were wrongfully deprived of their goods, as the Defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the goods were smuggled. Thus, the Plaintiffs were entitled to the return of their goods. Issue no. 5 was decided in favor of the Plaintiffs.Valuation of Goods:Issue no. 6(a) and (b) were not pressed by the Plaintiffs' counsel and thus were not considered by the court.Damages Suffered:The court found no evidence that the Plaintiffs suffered any damages due to the actions of the Defendants. The Plaintiffs failed to substantiate their claims of damages with concrete evidence. Therefore, Issue no. 7 was decided against the Plaintiffs.Validity of Notice under Section 80 of C.P.C.:The court found that the notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was valid and sufficient. The notices were properly served, and the suit was filed after the expiry of the requisite period. Thus, Issue no. 8(a) and (b) were decided in favor of the Plaintiffs.Suit Maintainability under the Sea Customs Act:The court held that the suit was maintainable as the Sea Customs Act, 1878, did not provide machinery for adjudicating the title of the properties. The civil court has jurisdiction to decide on the ownership of the properties. Thus, Issue no. 9 was decided in favor of the Plaintiffs.Suit Maintainability Against Certain Defendants:The court found that since the acts of the Defendants were done in the exercise of official duty, there could not be personal liability. Thus, Issue no. 10 was decided accordingly.Validity of Prohibitory Order:As previously mentioned, the court refrained from deciding on the validity of the prohibitory order (Issue no. 11) due to jurisdictional limitations.Suit Barred by Specific Statutory Provisions:The court found that the suit was not barred by the provisions of the Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act and the Indian Income Tax Act, as these statutes did not preclude adjudication of title by a civil court. Thus, Issue no. 12 was decided in favor of the Plaintiffs.Reliefs Entitled to Plaintiffs:The Plaintiffs were entitled to a declaratory decree that they were the owners of the articles mentioned in Schedule 'A', 'B', and 'C' and a mandatory injunction directing the Defendants to hand over the possession of these articles to the legal heirs of the original Plaintiffs. Thus, Issue no. 13 was decided in favor of the Plaintiffs.Conclusion:The suit was disposed of with the Plaintiffs succeeding in their claims for ownership and possession of the goods. The court ordered that the Plaintiffs get a decree of declaration and mandatory injunction for the delivery of the items mentioned in the schedules to the legal heirs of the original Plaintiffs.