TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (8) TMI 1095
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not disputed. It is not disputed that on 12.4.2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1 entered into an Agreement for sale and purchase of South African Coal measuring 16,943 metric tonnes. The Plaintiff agreed to sell the said quantity of coal to the Defendant No.1 at US $111.75 per metric tonne. On 22.4.2010, the Plaintiff, i.e., the Respondent No.1 herein, entered into another High Seas Sale Agreement with the Defendant No.1/Petitioner herein. Clause 2 of the said Agreement provides that the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 herein had imported 16,943 metric tonnes of Steaming Non Coking Coal in bulk of South African origin and had shipped the same on MV Novios Meridian arriving at Dharamtar Port, under Bill of Lading Numbers 2, 3 and 4, all d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents dated 12.4.2010 and 22.4.2010 stood cancelled and terminated. The Respondent No.1 also claimed return of the balance quantity of coal, amounting to 7400.082 metric tonnes, lying with the Respondent No.2 and for a decree for an amount of 1,22,04,349/- against the Petitioner towards the balance payment of the 9,542.920 metric tonnes of coal delivered to it by the Respondent No.2. Certain other claims were also made regarding interest and payment of demurrage charges incurred after the date of filing of the suit, as also the L/C discounting charges of 7,19,483/-. The Respondent No.1 also claimed permanent injunction to restrain the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 from handing over the balance amount of coal measuring 7400.082 metric tonnes lying w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Respondent No.1, the total amount due from the Petitioner in respect of the transaction was 6,19,58,123/-. On the other hand, it was the Petitioner's claim that the suit as filed by the Respondent No.1 was not for recovery of money for the goods supplied, but for cancellation/ termination of the Agreements dated 12.4.2010 and 22.4.2010, which were governed by the provisions of Section 46(1)(a) read with Section 47(1) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. On behalf of the Petitioners, it was also contended before the High Court that the title and ownership of the goods had already passed to the Petitioner. It was also urged that when the entire quantity of coal was delivered to the Respondent No.2 for the purpose of transmission of the sam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Three Only), within a stipulated period, the order of injunction passed by the Trial Court below Exh.5 on 16.4.2011, shall continue to operate pending the decision of the suit. (d) The plaintiff shall be at liberty to file an application for withdrawal of the said amount if deposited by the defendant no.1 and the same shall be decided by the Trial Court, within a period of four weeks from the date of serving copy of the application, upon the defendant no.1 or his Counsels." Mr. Biji Mathew, Adv. 9. Appearing for the Petitioner/Defendant No.1, Mr. Ranjit KumaMr. Biji Mathew, Adv.r, learned Senior Advocate, reiterated the submissions which had been made before the High Court. In addition, learned senior counsel indicated that since t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uit. 11. Mr. Ranjit Kumar also urged that by allowing the Respondent No.1's prayer for interim relief and passing a mandatory order of injunction thereupon, both the trial court as well as the High Court, had provided the Respondent No.1 with the ultimate relief prayed for in the suit at the interim stage and if the remaining quantity of coal was allowed to be removed by the Respondent No.1, the suit of the Respondent No.1 would stand decreed at the interim stage. 12. Mr. Ranjit Kumar's submissions were opposed by Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Respondent No.1 Company. It was urged that on the failure of the Petitioner to deposit the amounts in terms of the orders passed by the trial court, as als....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., provides that the Respondent No.1/seller would have a lien over the cargo unless payment was made in full and the Petitioner/purchaser subrogated its right of insurance claim in favour of the Respondent No.1. It was also stipulated that the quality was to be determined and certified by an independent inspection agency of Disport and the same would be final and binding on both the parties. It was further stipulated that the seller would thereupon transfer the rights in respect of the goods to the buyer by endorsing in favour of the buyer a set of negotiable documents and hand over the same to the latter. 14. Prima facie, the terms of the High Seas Sales Agreement appear to indicate that till the entire sale price was paid by the Petitio....