Apollo Paper Mills Ltd. vs Central Warehousing Corporation ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 1136 Del

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

             W.P. (C) 1340/2008 & CMs 2605, 4286, 17301/2008

                                       Reserved on : 18th January 2010
                                       Decision on : 26th February 2010


      APPOLLO PAPER MILLS LTD.             ..... Petitioner
                   Through Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate
                   with Mr. Rudreshwar Singh, Mr. Amit Pawan,
                   Mr. Anand Nandan
                   and Mr. Kaushik Poddar Advocates.

                     versus

      CENTRAL WAREHOUSING
      CORPORATION & ORS.                    ....Respondents
                  Through Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate
                  with Mr. K.K. Tyagi and
                  Mr. Iftakhar Ahmed, Advocates for R-1 to 3.


      CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR

            1. Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed
               to see the judgment?                                     No

            2. To be referred to the report or not?                     Yes

            3. Whether the judgment should be referred in the digest? Yes

                               JUDGMENT

26.02.2010

1. The Petitioner Appollo Paper Mills Ltd. (APML) seeks the quashing of

letters dated 29th November 2007 and 4th January 2008 issued by the

Respondent No.1 Central Warehousing Corporation (CWC) determining

the storage charges payable by the APML till 30th November 2007 to be

Rs.3,00,88,800/-, and the charges as on 31st December 2007 as

Rs.3,54,55,561/-

2. APML decided to set up a paper mill in Jhagadia, Gujarat and for that

purpose imported a used paper mill plant and machinery. The consignment

comprising 50 containers worth Rs.1.67 crores reached the Navi Mumbai

port on 18th January 1996. At that time there was a strike of stevedore

agents, and therefore, the consignment could not be cleared. It was shifted

to the warehouse of CWC gradually from 23rd January 1996 to 11th March

1996.

3. APML filed a Bill of Entry for the import with the customs authorities

only on 25th March 1996 for bonded warehousing since storage at the port,

where the ground rent was prohibitively high, was not a viable option. It is

stated that nevertheless the consignment was stored at the warehouse of the

CWC at CFS, Dronagiri where the ground rent was high, i.e., Rs.9 lakhs

per month as compared to the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month at the nearby

warehouses. Since the customs authorities were delaying the assessment of

the consignment, APML requested CWC to waive the demurrage charges

in terms of Clause 59 of the General Terms & Conditions of storage.

4. The assessment was finally made by the customs authorities on 18th /19th

June 1997. APML paid the entire duty as assessed on the same day.

According to the Petitioner, the delay of 15 months in making the

assessment was not on account of the Petitioner. The delay by the customs

authorities had unnecessarily caused the demurrage to rise to exorbitant

levels. The Petitioner sent another letter dated 21st July 1997 to CWC to

waive of the demurrage with the further request that the consignment be

shifted to a nearby warehouse where the charges were 30 times lower.

These requests were not heeded to. Consequently the demurrage charges

exceeded the value of the consignment and that too for no fault of APML.

Consequently, APML filed Writ Petition (Civil) No.5788 of 1997 in the

High Court of Bombay. On 28th December 1997 while admitting the writ

petition, the Bombay High Court directed the CWC to shift the 50

containers to the general warehouse at Ambernath on APML paying the

necessary transportation charges. APML complied with this direction.

Nevertheless the CWC shifted the 50 containers to the CWC at Kalamboli

instead of the warehouse at Ambernath.

5. The above writ petition was finally disposed of by the Bombay High

Court by a detailed judgment dated 28th October 2005. The Bombay High

Court found that APML had not made out a case of shifting the liability for

the warehouse charges to the central government. However, as regards the

delay on the part of the CWC, the High Court expressed the opinion that it

was "totally dissatisfied with the manner in which the CWC authorities

have handled the present case". It noted that although the writ petition had

been filed seven years earlier "till date the C.W.C. has not chosen to file its

reply to the petition". This was the position even when the petition was

heard on 14th October 2005. In the application filed by the CWC to enforce

its demand, it did not deal with the allegations made against the CWC in

the writ petition. It was accordingly observed that there was "total

negligence on the part of the officials of the C.W.C." and that the conduct

of its officers "in taking the matter so casually is highly deplorable".

6. The Bombay High Court found that the order dated 21st July 1997

passed by the CWC rejecting the application made by the APML for

waiver of the demurrage charges "has been passed casually and in gross

violation of the principles of natural justice". It was held that the failure on

the part of the CWC to disclose reasons for declining the request for

waiver was a gross abuse of the process of law and in contravention of the

principles of natural justice. It was accordingly quashed and set aside. The

High Court observed that the CWC had at the time of the admission of the

writ petition voluntarily agreed to shift the goods at their warehouse at

Ambernath subject to the Petitioner bearing the transportation charges.

However, in breach of that order, CWC had shifted the goods to Kalamboli

and not Ambernath. Taking a serious view of the above act of the CWC in

unilaterally and in breach of the order of the court shifting the goods to the

Kalamboli where the charges were higher than the charges in Ambernath,

the Bombay High Court passed the following order:

"(a) The Customs authorities shall issue a detention certificate in respect of the goods imported by the petitioner for the period from the date of filing of bill of entry on May 25, 1996 till the assessment of the goods on June 9, 1997, within a period of two weeks from today.

(b) The order passed by the C.W.C. dated July 21, 1997 declining to waive the warehousing charges is quashed and set aside and the C.W.C. is directed to dispose of the waiver application of the petitioner by passing a fresh reasoned order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of six weeks from today.

(c) In the event of the C.W.C. declining to waive the warehouse charges, then the C.W.C. shall compute the warehousing charges payable on the consignment upto December 22, 1997 after taking into consideration the detention certificate to be issued by the Customs authorities.

(d) As regards the warehousing charges for the period from December 23, 1997 till clearance of the goods, the C.W.C. shall compute the same at the rate applicable to the goods stored at the warehouse at Ambernath and not at the rate prevailing at the warehouse at Kalamboli.

(e) It is made clear that in the event of the C.W.C. declining to waive the warehousing charges, the liability to pay the above charges as computed by the C.W.C. shall be on the petitioner and not on the Customs authorities."

7. Following the above order, on 12th December 2005 the Customs

authorities issued a detention certificate. Meanwhile with a view to

correcting certain errors in the order dated 28th October 2005, the Petitioner

filed a review petition which was disposed of by the Bombay High Court

on 20th December 2005 in which it was clarified that the date on which the

detention certificate was to be issued from should read as "25th March 1996

and not from 25th May 1996". The date of assessment was changed from

June 9, 1997 to June 18 1997.

8. Aggrieved by the order to the extent that the High Court had not

accepted the plea of APML that the customs authorities should be made

liable for the demurrage charges, APML filed Special Leave Petition

(Civil) Nos.1881-82 of 2006 in the Supreme Court. That was ultimately

dismissed on 7th November 2006. Soon thereafter on 10th November 2006

the APML through its counsel requested the CWC to hear the Petitioner so

that necessary orders can be passed in compliance with the order dated 28th

October 2005 of the Bombay High Court. The CWC informed APML that

it would be heard on 19th February 2007. That was ultimately postponed to

2nd April 2007.

9. It is stated that the CWC thereafter took more than seven months to take

a decision. By the letter dated 29th November 2007 it informed APML that

the competent authority had decided to grant a waiver of the 50% and the

total charges have been computed at Rs.3,00,88,800/- provided the

payment was made before 30th November 2007. It was clarified that there

would be no waiver of insurance charges and service tax etc. The

Petitioner states that this letter dated 29th November 2007 was dispatched

only on 3rd December 2007 and received by APML on 7th December 2007

and therefore it was impossible to meet the deadline of 30th November

2007 as stipulated in the said letter. Moreover, APML disputed the

calculation on the basis of which the total demurrage charges were

computed as Rs.3,00,88,800/-. It accordingly requested for a detailed

computation. In reply more than a month letter on 4th January 2008, the

CWC enclosed the basis of the computation. The Petitioner sent a letter

dated 11th January 2008 to the CWC highlighting the errors in the

computation. APML also sent a corrigendum to its letter dated 11th January

2008 on 21st January 2008. It was clarified that the CWC was liable to

claim service tax from 16th August 2002 and not 11th May 2007.

10. When APML did not get any response, it filed the present petition on

18th February 2008. The prayers in this writ petition are for quashing of the

aforementioned letters dated 29th November 2007 and 4th January 2008 and

for a direction to the CWC to release the consignment of the APML upon

payment of any legitimate amount.

11. While directing notice to issue in the present petition on 3 rd March

2008, this Court directed, subject to the Petitioner depositing a sum of

Rs.50 lakhs with the CWC within a period of two weeks, there shall be a

stay of the remaining demand raised in the letter dated 29 th November

2007. The said amount has since been deposited by APML with the Court.

12. On 18th August 2008 a detailed order was passed by the learned Single

Judge of this Court in CM No.2606 of 2008 filed by the Petitioner seeking

interim relief. After perusing the counter affidavit filed by the CWC, and

also setting out the facts and submissions, this Court issued the following

directions:-

"I. The Petitioner shall furnish an unconditional bank guarantee of Rs. 1.00 crore in favour of the respondent. The said amount shall be kept alive until further orders of this Court in the present petition.

II. Within ten days from today, the petitioner shall also give an undertaking that upon deposit of the bank guarantee, it shall not sell its plant and machinery so released by the respondent.

III. Upon filing of the undertaking, the respondent shall release the plant and machinery of the petitioner. IV. Upon release of its plant and machinery, the petitioner shall file an affidavit clearly stating the condition of the plant and machinery."

13. It is stated that the Petitioner did not furnish the bank guarantee of

Rs.1 crore as the value of the consignment itself was less as on that date.

After hearing the case for some time on 11th January 2010, this Court

passed the following order:

"1. There was a positive direction in the judgment dated 28th October 2005 of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.5788 of 1997 inter alia to the following effect:-

"29.......

(a) ......

(b) ......

(c) .......

(d) As regards the warehousing charges for the period from December 23, 1997 till clearance of the goods, the C.W.C. shall compute the same at the rate applicable to the goods stored at the warehouse at Ambernath and not at the rate prevailing at the warehouse at Kalamboli."

2. Mr. Bhardwaj, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the CWC seeks and is granted three days time to file an affidavit explaining how the amount now sought to be recovered from the Petitioner, has been calculated in compliance with the above directions.

3. List on 18th January, 2010. Order be given dasti to the counsel for the parties."

14. Consequent to the above order, the CWC filed an additional affidavit

dated 15th January 2010.

15. This Court has heard the arguments of Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned

Senior counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, learned Senior

counsel appearing for the Respondent CWC.

16. At the outset, it is submitted that the bank guarantee was sought to be

furnished on 5th December 2008 beyond the time limit fixed by this Court

in its interim order dated 18th August 2008 and accordingly not accepted

by CWC. The resultant position is that the consignment still remains in the

warehouse of the CWC at Kalamboli.

17. Mr. Patwalia states that the industrial policy of the State of Himachal

Pradesh where the proposed paper mill was to be set up is expiring in 2010

and therefore if the consignment cannot be made available now, the entire

effort of the APML would be rendered futile. Therefore, the Petitioner has

come forward to pay any legitimate amount that may be demanded by the

CWC. It is submitted that the manner of computation was made clear by

the order dated 28th October 2005 read with order dated 20th December

2005 passed by the Bombay High Court. For the detention period as

specified by the Customs authorities, no demurrage charges would be

payable. The CWC was required to pass a fresh order on APML‟s

application for waiver. In the event of CWC declining to waive the

warehousing charges, it was to compute the warehouse charges payable on

the consignment "upto December 1997 after taking into consideration the

detention certificate issued by the customs authorities". Therefore the

period of waiver was in effect to be for the period 18 th June 1997 till 22nd

December 1997. As regards the warehouse charges for the period

thereafter, i.e., from 23rd December 1997 till the clearance of the goods, the

CWC was to compute the warehouse charges "as already applicable to the

goods stored at the warehouse at Ambernath and not at the rate prevailing

at the warehouse in Kalamboli". It was made clear that in the event of

CWC declining to waive the warehouse charges, the liability to pay the

above charges as computed by the CWC shall be on the Petitioner and not

on the customs authorities". It is submitted that there are obvious errors in

the calculations of the CWC since the manner of the computation of the

charges payable by the Petitioner is at variance with the actual charges

leviable for storage of goods at Ambernath,

18. Mr. Patwalia submits that one Hemant Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (HOPL) had

written to the CWC asking it to submit a formal quotation for storage of 40

feet containers. By a further letter dated 3rd October 2007, the HOPL again

asked the CWC to submit a formal quotation for storage of 40 ft.

containers. On the same date, the CWC wrote to the Director, HOPL

stating as under:-

"The Director M/s.Hemant Overseas Private Ltd.

Emerald Isle-I, Flat No.2002.

Royal Palms<Aarey Milk Colony Goregaon (East) MUMBAI-400 066.

Sub: Storage of 40‟ Containers at CW, Ambernath - reg. Sir, We have for reference your letter dt. 3.10.2007 asking for the tariff in the open area for storage of 150 Nos. 40‟ containers. We feel that it may not be possible to carry out storage operations at 150 sq mtrs space as proposed by you to store 150 X 40‟ containers. However, the storage charges required for open space at CW, Ambernath for storage of 40‟ containers in the open will be @ Rs.48/- + 5% per sq mtr per month if the open space available at the centre is taken on a continuous reservation basis for the actual carpet area of the selected storage space including operation of space, internal roads etc. as required for providing linkage to the storage site. The above rate is not

inclusive of handling rates, insurance for the container and cargo and service tax and other government levies which will be payable extra. As per our calculations, the storage area required for the 150 X 40‟ containers will be roughly 6,000 sq mtrs.

The insurance charges are applicable at the rate of 5 paise per Rs.100/- value of the stocks per month or part thereof. Service tax and education cess applicable as on date is 12.36% of the storage charges.

We are looking forward to your confirmation of your requirements."

19. A further letter was written on 4th October 2007 by the HOPL to the

CWC stating that it was interested in finalizing the contract for storage of

40 ft. containers at Ambernath at Rs.48/- + 5% per sq. m per month.

Further the following clarifications were sought:-

"Clarifications Required:

1. We will be storing a single kind of material in all our containers and thus the movement of containers will not be much.

2. We are interested in stacking the containers one over the other and thus we will be stacking 3(three) containers in a column one over the other. Thus in total 3(three) containers will only occupy 30 sq mtr of ground area.

3. We will be storing the containers for three months fixed without any movement of containers and thus the extra area for movement is not at all required.

Thus I request you to kindly reconsider the area calculation of 6000 sq mtr in your above mentioned letter and advice the same on an urgent basis to facilitate us to confirm the requirement

and looking for a long term business relationship.

Further I request you to further confirm if we will be allowed to stack containers one over the other (in total 3) and what will be the ground rent charges in case of stacking. Please confirm if the ground rate for one container will apply in case of stacking containers one over the other."

20. On the above letter, CWC‟s official gave the following clarification:

"(1) The ground rent mentioned in for the land area, irrespective of number of tiers of containers stacked. (2) The total carpet area of the open space earmarked, including movement space is charges."

21. It is submitted that the above clarification makes it clear that the

ground rent for the land area at Ambernath was applicable irrespective of

the number of tiers of containers stacked.

22. According to the calculation sheet submitted by APML, the following

amounts are payable by it:

For the        Days   Particulars                                     Amount
period
                                                                      (Rs.)

11.3.1996 to   3      Free period of 3 days counted after the arrival NIL

18.6.1997             of the full consignment under one Bill of

                      Lading and Under One Invoice

15.3.1996 to   10     Rent of the Container Freight Station at the    1,33,333.33

24.3.1996             rate of Rs. 8,000 per month per container for

                      10 days for 50 containers





 25.31996 to    452   Period of Detention Certificate- thus no NIL

18.6.1996            amount payable

19.6.1996 to   186   Calculation of Warehousing charges in the     1,50,460.60

22.12.1997           rates in Ambernath Warehouse at the rate of

                     Rs. 48.00 per square metres per month

2312.1997      4,409 Calculation of Warehousing charges in the

18.1.2010            rates in Ambernath Warehouse at the rate of 35,66,563.55

                     Rs. 48.00 per square metres per month

Waiver at rate of 50% as per the order dated 17,83,281.78

29th November 2007

Insurance Charges 13,11,519.00

Service Tax Charges (Rounded up) 2,00,000.00

Grand Total 35,78,594.71

23. Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, the learned Senior counsel for the CWC in

explaining the CWC‟s calculation sheets (according to which APML has to

pay Rs.2.03 crores) refers to the CWC‟s additional affidavit where it is first

contended that the waiver was conditional upon the payment being made

on or before 30th November 2007 which decision was informed

telephonically to the Petitioner on 12th November 2007. Since this deadline

was crossed, the APML was required to pay the storage charges. Further it

is stated that worldwide, containers are always charged on per container

basis and that the amount of storage charges as far as CFS is concerned,

have been calculated in terms of the prevailing circulars. Since the

Petitioner had itself prayed before the Bombay High Court [in prayer

clause (d) (ii) of its writ petition] for shifting of the consignment to the

warehouse at Ambernath at Rs.100/- per container per day, the calculation

was made on that basis. It is submitted that Kalamboli was a Container

Freight Station (CFS) meant for handling of containers, and for handling

the containers, Reach Stackers worth Rs.2 to 4 crores were required and

therefore it had been decided to shift the containers to Kalamboli instead of

Ambernath. It is stated that general warehouses are not designed and meant

for storage and handling of containers. It is stated that by the circular dated

2nd April 1996 the storage charges at Kalamboli after 30 days, was

Rs.660/- per 40‟ container per day. This was revised to Rs.500/- per 40‟

container per day by its letter dated 29th January 2004. By a further letter

dated 17th September 2008 it was revised to Rs.600/- per day. It is

maintained that the charges were calculated correctly. Further the charges

are calculated on per sq. m. basis in terms of other circulars. Consequently

it is maintained that as far as the period post-31st December 2007 is

concerned, the CWC was entitled to storage charges "at the prevailing rates

of CFS, Kalamboli where Rs.600 per 40‟ container per day are being

charged".

24. With particular reference to Circular dated 3rd March 2005 written by

the CWC to all its regional offices, it is stated that storages charges for

open warehousing spaces had to be calculated by using the following

formula:

"1) 60% of the covered area rates in general warehousing segment and export warehouses attached to CFSs/ICDs and;

2) 75% of the covered area rates in respect of public bonded open public bonded (although this office has also fixed storage charges for open public bonded warehouses on net area basis which could be applied to avoid calculation errors)."

On the above basis it is submitted that the demand raised by the CWC in

the aforementioned letters is perfectly justified.

25. This Court has considered the above submissions. It is not in dispute

that the basis for the calculations for storage charges payable by the APML

has to be the order dated 28th October 2005 of the Bombay High Court as

further corrected by the order dated 20th December 2005. It is not open to

the CWC to deviate from the specific directions issued in para 29 of the

judgment dated 20th December 2005 passed by the Bombay High Court,

since that judgment has attained finality with the dismissal by the Supreme

Court of the SLP filed against the judgment by APML.

26. Although it is sought to be contended by the CWC that it has not

deviated from that order, it appears to this court that what the CWC has

calculated now as being due as storage charges from APML is not

consistent with that order. The calculations by the CWC includes storage

charges for the period from 23.1.1996 till 24.3.1996 whereas the

computation in terms of the judgment of the Bombay High Court was to

begin from 15th March 1996 (after giving three days‟ „free period‟ after the

complete consignment was shifted from Navi Mumbai port to CWC‟s

warehouse). APML filed its Bill of Entry on 25th March 1996 and therefore

till then it was required to pay rent. However for the period from 25 th

March 1996 till 18th June 1997 when the assessment was made, APML was

not liable to pay storage charges as this was the period, which according to

the judgment of the Bombay High Court was to be covered by the

detention certificate. However, CWC has in its calculations computed

storage charges for the period from 25th March to 24th May 2006 and again

from 10th to 18th June 1997.

27. The next phase is from 18th June 1997 till 22nd December 1997 for

which period the Petitioner‟s request for grant of waiver had to be

considered. Strangely the decision to grant waiver of 50% was given and

communicated to APML only by a letter dated 29th November 2007 which

was received by it on 7th December 2007. There is merit in the contention

of the learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner that the said letter set an

impossible time target of payment having made by 30th November 2007

when in fact the letter was itself dispatched only on 3rd December 2007. In

any event the CWC has decided to grant 50% waiver. That cannot now

sought to be rescinded only because the Petitioner did not make the

payment by 30th November 2007 since the letter itself was dispatched later

and received by the APML on 7th December 2007. However, in its

calculation, the CWC has not accounted for the waiver and this has further

inflated its figures.

28. We come to now third aspect of the charges payable from December

1997 till the time of clearance. CWC does not deny that it has not strictly

applied the prevailing rates at Ambernath notwithstanding that the Bombay

High Court left this matter in no manner of doubt in its judgment dated 28th

October 2005. It is, therefore, not open to the CWC to now argue that it is

justified in levying the rates as applicable in CWC‟s warehouse at

Kalamboli. As regards the contention of CWC that the APML itself had

agreed to the charging of Rs.100/- per container, it is pointed out by the

learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that it had filed an application

seeking an amendment to the main writ petition filed in the Bombay High

Court on this aspect. Be that as it may, it is the operative portion of the

order dated 28th October 2005 of the Bombay High Court that really

matters. That order is very clear that the rates will be those charged at

Ambernath and not Kalamboli.

29. The next issue concerns the manner in which the CWC has applied and

calculated the storage charges by purportedly applying the Ambernath

rates. Incidentally, this came about during the hearing and in the form of

the additional affidavit of the CWC. There is no answer by the CWC to the

correspondence exchanged between HOPL and the CWC which brings out

the applicable rates at Ambernath. The CWC cannot be heard to treat the

case of the Petitioner differently from those whose goods are stored at

Ambernath particularly when the Bombay High Court directed it to pay the

storage charges payable on the basis of the rates prevailing at Ambernath.

30. The Petitioner has placed on record the relevant circulars which show

the revised rates of storage charges. Going by this it appears to this court

that the calculations given by the CWC are far beyond what was permitted

by the Bombay High Court. Instead of applying its own circulars and in

light of the judgment of the Bombay High Court, the CWC has added all

kinds of charges to justify its demand. If the CWC had any further

clarification to seek in this regard, it could have easily applied to the

Bombay High Court. This it did not choose to do.

31. Mr. Bhardwaj referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Board

of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Indian Goods Supplying Co. (1977)

2 SCC 649; International Airport Authority of India v. Grand Slam

International (1995) 3 SCC 151 and Trustees of the Port of Madras

through its Chairman v. M/s. K.P.V. Sheikh of Mohd. Rowther & Co.

Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 10 SCC 285 and urged that even if the unjustified

detention of the imported goods resulted in incurring demurrage, the

liability to pay the warehousing charges would be only on the consignee.

This Court finds that the above decisions turned on their own facts. As far

as the present case is concerned, the Bombay High Court has considered

the issues concerning liability of the respective parties and its judgment is

final and binding on the parties. It is not open for the CWC now to seek to

fasten a liability on APML which is beyond the scope of the judgment of

the Bombay High Court.

32. There is no satisfactory explanation given by the CWC for the delay in

complying with the directions of the Bombay High Court. The CWC

perhaps knows best that the longer the goods remain in its warehouse, the

higher the opportunity costs lost to it. The longer the CWC takes to

compute and communicate the storage charges to the consignee, the longer

the space in its warehouse remains occupied and is unavailable for the

other consignments. CWC‟s inaction in the instant case has resulted in

severely prejudicing not only APML but CWC itself. The adverse remarks

of the Bombay High Court consequent upon its finding of the conduct of

the officers of the CWC has obviously not spurred them to act any quicker

thereafter.

33. In the considered view of this Court, the calculation as submitted by

APML of the storage charges due (as enclosed with its written synopsis

dated 25th January 2010) is consistent with the judgment of the Bombay

High Court and merits acceptance. Accordingly the impugned letters dated

29th November 2007 and 4th January 2008 of the CWC are hereby quashed.

However, APML will update the figures as calculated by it till 28th

February 2010 and submit those calculations to the CWC within one week

from today. APML has already deposited with the CWC a sum of Rs. 50

lakhs pursuant to the interim order dated 3rd March 2008. After deducting

the amount due to the CWC as calculated by APML, CWC will refund the

balance to APML within two weeks thereafter. The CWC will

simultaneously without delay release the consignment to the Petitioner.

34. The writ petition is allowed with the above directions with costs of

Rs.25,000/- which will be paid by CWC to APML within three weeks. All

pending applications stand disposed of.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

FEBRUARY 26, 2010 ak