Delhi High Court
M/S Muscles Fusion Fze vs Ramesh Mamidala & Anr on 1 May, 2017
37
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 334/2017 & CM APPL. 16504/2017
M/S MUSCLES FUSION FZE ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Anjali J. Manish, Advocate with
Mr. Priyadarshi Manish, Advocate.
versus
RAMESH MAMIDALA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sarul Jain, Advocate for respondent
No.1.
Mr. Milanka Chaudhury, Advocate with
Mr. Sarojanand Jha and Ms. Satakshi
Sood, Advocate for respondent No.3-
DIAL.
% Date of Decision: 01st May, 2017
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. Present contempt petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience
of the order dated 27th March, 2017 passed in W.P.(C) 2773/2017 whereby it
was directed that respondents No.3 and 4 shall take necessary consequential
action giving due effect to re-export order dated 25th March, 2017 having
regard to the detention certificate expeditiously.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner states that despite the aforesaid order,
respondents have not waived the demurrage/ground rent and consequently,
petitioner's goods have not been released for re-export. In support of her
submission, she relies upon Regulation 6(1)(l) of the Handling of Cargo in
Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 as well as the Division Bench
judgments of this Court in Delhi International Airport Pct. Ltd. Vs. Union
of India, 2017 (346) E.LT. 65 (Del.) and Trip Communication Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Union of India, 2014 (302) E.L.T. 321 (Del.).
3. Learned counsel for respondents, who appear on advance notice, state
that the petitioner has suppressed material facts inasmuch as it has not
disclosed either in contempt petition or in arguments that it has already filed
a writ petition being W.P.(C) 3589/2017 wherein a specific prayer is that the
petitioner be allowed to re-export the goods import without charging any
demurrage/ground rent. They state that notices have already been issued in
the petitioner's writ petition being W.P.(C) 3589/2017, returnable on 04th
May, 2017.
4. Having heard learned counsel for parties, this Court is of the view that
petitioner owed a duty to disclose in the present contempt petition as well as
during the course of arguments that it had filed a writ petition seeking relief
for waiver of demurrage/ground rent.
5. In any event, this Court is of the opinion that since there is no
discussion leave alone an adjudication on the issue of waiver of
demurrage/ground rent, the present petition is not maintainable.
6. The Supreme Court in All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
Vs. L.K. Tripathi and Ors., (2009) 5 SCC 417 has held that contempt of
Court is a quasi criminal act and as such the standard of proof required is
that of a criminal proceeding and the breach or wilful disobedience has to be
established beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, in the absence of
any specific direction to waive of the demurrage/ground rent, this Court is of
the view that the present contempt petition is not maintainable.
7. Accordingly, present contempt petition and application are dismissed.
However, this Court clarifies that the present order shall have no bearing on
the writ petition being W.P.(C) 3589/2017, which shall be decided on its
own merits.
Order dasti under the signature of Court Master.
MANMOHAN, J
MAY 01, 2017
js
