Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20. There is also a reply affidavit to the notice of motion filed on behalf of respondent no.1 of Mr.Akshay Jain- Director of respondent no.1 who confirms that respondent no.1 has sold the goods sealed by the Court Receiver to the applicant for valuable consideration. It is further contended that the money received from the applicant were paid over to the petitioner by making ad- hoc payments. It is stated that there is nothing wrong in the market practice that the steel which is purchased by the applicant as per the market requirement is re-purchased by respondent no.1 and this indicates the trading which happens in the steel market and it depends on the understanding of the market. It is submitted that these are usual market practices and there is nothing dishonest about a well accepted trade practice in the market. It is This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 05/11/2019 21 nmcdl 2044-19.odt contended that the petitioner has deliberately tried to twist the facts. In paragraph 8 of the affidavit, it is contended that the applicant had purchased the HR coils/goods from the respondents and have paid the entire consideration by RTGS, Letters of Credit, cheques and/or against sale, which is then paid by respondent nos.1 and 3 to the petitioner from time to time. Respondent no.1 confirms the details as set out by the applicant in respect of such concluded sale such as number of invoices, names of cutters, details of warehouses etc. at a chart which is annexed at "Exhibit A" to the affidavit in support of the notice of motion. Respondent no.1 has also contended that after selling the material in question to the applicant, the respondents have paid GST and have filed GST returns with the concerned authorities. In regard to the discrepancies in the Code numbers, respondent no.1 has contended that it is complete distortion of facts by the petitioner as it is contended that code numbers given by the petitioner on each HR coils runs into 10 digits or more. It is stated that invariably the respondents, the applicant, cutters, etc. have to deal large quantity of HR coils and hundreds of coils every day and it is not practical to refer to the 10 digits or more code number given by the petitioner, and therefore, as a well established market practice, on receiving the HR Coils from the petitioner, the respondents would paint their own code numbers on HR coils. It is stated that after the applicant purchases the same HR coils from the respondents, the delivery will be taken This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 05/11/2019 22 nmcdl 2044-19.odt by the applicant and the applicant will keep the HR coils in the godown of the cutters and the cutters write down or paint their own code number on the HR coils. It is thus contended that when the petitioner deals with the respondents, the same will be in terms of the coil code number given by the petitioner, and similarly when the respondents deal with the applicant or any other buyer, the respondents will deal with the coil code number given by the respondents and/or cutter coil number and when the applicant deals with his customers, the applicant would use the cutter's code number. It is for this reason in each invoice raised by the petitioner on the respondents, invoice raised by the respondents on the applicant and letter issued by the cutters if perused, the chain from the petitioner's godown to the cutter's godown can easily be established. It is stated that the deponents of the affidavit are aware about the market practice but have suppressed the same from this Court.

22. On the above pleadings, the learned senior counsel for the parties have made their respective submissions.

23. Mr. Madon, learned senior counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to various documents placed on record, namely, invoices, delivery notes, proof of payment of GST returns. Referring to the pleadings, Mr. Madon would contend that indisputedly the applicant is the owner of the goods having paid the full consideration amount to respondent nos. 1 and/or 3 and considering the clear position in law, the petitioner would not have any right whatsoever once the physical possession of the goods was with the applicant. Mr. Madon has contended that the petitioner is asserting its rights on the goods on presumption that they belong to respondent nos. 1 and 3 under the Franchise Agreement dated 1 July 2018 and more particularly on the basis of Clause 12, namely, "Right of lien" as agreed between the petitioner and respondents. Mr. Madon has contended that this agreement itself is doubtful for the petitioner to assert any right in as much as the agreement is stated to be of 1 July 2018 while on the stamp paper it is dated 14 September 2018 and a copy, as placed on record, is also not signed on behalf of the petitioner as also the names of two witnesses of the petitioner is This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 05/11/2019 24 nmcdl 2044-19.odt kept blank.

33. As seen from the submissions as noted above, Mr. Madon, learned senior counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant has independent rights once these goods are sold to the applicant by the respondents and nothing contained in the Franchise Agreement can affect the This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 05/11/2019 39 nmcdl 2044-19.odt rights of the applicant, who is a bonafide purchaser for value without any notice of the agreement entered between the petitioner and the respondents (Franchise Agreement). The basis on this contention is that these are valid purchase transactions for which finance was raised by the applicant from Union Bank of India and that full amount/consideration is paid qua these purchases to the respondents, as also the tax (GST) is paid and GST returns are also filed. Mr. Madon's submission is that the applicant has an unimpeachable right in law over these goods, as claimed and entitlement to these goods.