TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (8) TMI 123
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder lot numbers 369, 371, 377, 378, 382, 389, 391 and 392 were accepted by the Customs Authorities as the highest one.There is no dispute in respect of other lots excepting the lot No. 393. In respect of lot No. 393 a sum of Rs. 1.62 per kg. was accepted by the Customs authorities. Consideration was paid in full but because of an interim order passed by this Court in the writ jurisdiction the delivery could not be made. 2.A writ application was moved in respect of the aforesaid lot including lots mentioned hereinabove on the ground that although the offer had been accepted and money had been paid, there was non-delivery of the lots in question to the writ petitioner. So far as lot No. 392 is concerned , it appears that the said lot was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ementary affidavit filed by the CPT. When these goods were going to be sold in auction on the basis of such advertisement this writ application was moved by the writ petitioner praying for a direction upon the respondents that in view of the deposit of the aforesaid amount with the Customs authority question of sale by public auction of those goods could not arise at all as on the deposit of the aforesaid sum with the Customs authorities the writ petitioners have become the owner of the said lots. 4.Mr. S.P. Mazumdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the CPT, however, submits that the advertisement that has been made for sale by auction in respect of the lots mentioned in the supplementary affidavit are not the goods for which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irect payment of compensation along with refund of the amount which has already been deposited by them as purchase money in respect of the lots offered to the writ petitioners. According to Mr. Talukdar in view of delay in delivery of the goods there was deterioration of the goods and, therefore, on inspection delivery of the goods could not be taken by the writ petitioners. Therefore, according to Mr. Talukdar, the Customs authorities are liable to pay compensation for making delay in the delivery of goods for which the conditions of the goods became deteriorated. In support of this contention Mr. Talukdar relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1964 S.C. 1885 (State of Gujarat v. Menon Mahammad). In that decision the Sup....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....said, I am unable to grant any relief to the writ petitioner, as, for giving relief or to decide the said application, the Writ Court has to investigate disputed questions of fact which, in my view, is not permissible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without production of evidence by the parties. It is well settled law now that in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Writ Court is not permitted to go into the disputed question of fact and decide the disputed question of fact without investigating the dispute on production of evidence to be adduced by both the parties. If any authority is required for this purpose I may straightway refer to the decision of the Apex Court of our country in the case of ....