M/S. GUJARAT CYPROMET LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] 3 S.C.R. 339 · Decided: 07-04-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

M/S. GUJARAT CYPROMET LTD. 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
APRIL 7, 2005 
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., G.P. MATHUR AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
B 
Major Port Trusts Act, 1963-Sections 61 to 63-Sale of unclaimed 
cargo by public auction-Port Trust in terms of its Board Resolution deducted 
50% of the sale proceeds towards sale expenses-Such deduction challenged C 
by way of writ petition-High Court holding that the controversy raised involved 
adjudication of facts which was not possible in a writ petition, advised 
pursuance of ordinary civil remedy-On appeal, held: The Board passed 
resolution to deduct 50% of the sale proceeds as sale expenses, as it was not 
possible to precisely determine the sale expenses in each case-The resolution 
has not been shown to be invalid on any ground-In fact, in two relevant D 
years, the actual sale expenses exceeded the amount realized on basis of the 
impugned resolution and the Port Trust suffered loss -Hence, no case made 
out for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution-Constitution of 
India, 1950-Article 136. 
Appellant imported certain consignments of copper cathodes from E 
Germany in August, 1998. The consignments were not cleared by the 
appellant from the Port Trust and were therefore sold in public auction 
in 2000. The Port Trust deducted 50 per cent of the sale proceeds towards 
sale expenses. Appellant filed writ petition in High Court challenging the 
deduction. It contended that the sale proceeds towards expenses of sale F . 
on actual basis only should be deducted and the balance amount should 
be paid to the appellant. High Court held that the controversy raised 
involved adjudication of facts which was not possible in a writ petition 
filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition was 
accordingly disposed of permitting the appellant to pursue ordinary civil 
remedy for redressal of its grievance. Hence the present appeal. 
G 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. Though the principal prayer made in the writ petition 
was to quash Resolution No. 624 dated 23.7.1999 of the Port Trust 
339 
H 
340 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] 3 S.C.R. 
A whereunder it was resolved that 50 per cent of the sale proceeds in a 
consignment be appropriated towards expenses of the sale, the appellant 
has not been able to point out any ground as to how the said resolution is 
invalid. [343-B-q 
2.1. Section 61 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 empowers the 
B Board, after the expiry of two months from the time when any goods have 
passed into its custody (other than animals, perishable or hazardous 
goods), to sell by public auction, the goods so removed. Section 62 of the 
Act also empowers the Board to sell the goods by public auction which 
after landing thereof are not removed by the owner or 0th.er person 
C entitled thereto from the premises of the Board within one month from 
the date on which such goods were placed in their custody. In view of these 
statutory provisions, the Board was perfectly justified in selling the 
unclaimed cargo by public auction. [344-A-B) 
2.2. Since it is not possible to precisely determine the expenses of sale 
D in each case on account of various factors involved, the Board has passed 
a resolution to deduct 50 per cent of the.sale proceeds as expenses of sale. 
It has to be borne in mind that sometimes the expenses of sale, which is 
conducted through public auction after a Gazette notificatio~ and wide 
publicity in newspapers, far exceed the actual amoimt recovered. In fact, 
the figures supplied in the counter affidavit show that in the year 2000-· 
E 2001 and 2001-2002 the total cost incurred in holding the public auction 
exceeded the amount recovered on the basis of the il!'pugned resolution 
i.e. 50 per cent of the sale proceeds and thus the Board has suffered a loss. 
[344-C-D) 
F 
3. The appellant has failed to make out any case for interference 
under Article 136 of the Constitution. [344-E) 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2472 of2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.9.2002 of the Bombay High 
Court in W.P. No. 2452 of 2001. 
Ms. Neeru Vaid for the Appellant. 
R. Mohan and B. Datta, Additional Solicitor Generals, Ajay Sharma, 
Hemant Sharma and P. Parmeswaran with them: for the Respondents. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
GUJARAT CYPROMET LTD. v. U.0.1. [G.P. MATHUR, J.] 
341 
G.P. MATHUR, J. l. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgmen

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.