B.S. Verma, J.@mdashHeard learned Counsel of the parties and perused the record.
2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:
(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction calling the records of the case leading to the issuing of the impugned demand letter dated 27-07-2010 and 03-08-2010 by respondent No. 3 and quashing the same on a consideration of the grounds forming subject matter of the present petition.
(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction thereby prohibiting the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 from detaining the goods of the petitioner for non payment of the said amount of Rs. 43, 57, 372/-by the petitioner.
(c) Award costs through out to the petitioner.
(d) Issue any other writ, order or direction granting to the petitioner all other necessary and consequential reliefs as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
3. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 issued a letter of demand to the petitioner on 27-07-2010 on the grounds that the writ petition was dismissed by the High Court of Nainital and to pay an amount of Rs. 46, 74,197/- direct the petitioner to deposit the amount mentioned in the impugned notice otherwise, the goods are retained and the amount be recovered by selling the goods.
4. It is made clarified that the earlier notice was issued to the respondent No. 5 the hanging agent. The respondent No. 5 filed the writ petition No. 949 of 2010 (M/S), which was withdrawn by the respondent No. 5 on 15-06-2010 with liberty to approach appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance. In the instant writ petition, this Court did not passed the order on merit.
5. This impugned notice has been issued to the petitioner-M/s Kashi Vishwanath Steels Limited the petitioner company being consignee. As per provision of Section 73 of the Companies Act, the respondent may recovered the amount from the consignee also.
6. The grievance of the petitioner is that it is an old demand and has become time barred. In the impugned notice, no details of the period for which demand was made and there is no mention of calculation, so that the petitioner may know, what is the actual amount to be paid or not.
7. The petitioner came to know that this amount is being recovered on the basis of some audit objections. The respondent did not disclose those objections and without giving opportunity of hearing this amount is being recovered from the petitioner.
8. In the fact and circumstances of the case and in the fitness of things in the interest of justice, it is directed that the petitioner is giving liberty to file objections against the impugned notice dated 27-07-2010, annexed as annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, within a period of one week. If the objections are filed, the respondent No. 3 shall dispose of the objections by speaking order within a period of four weeks. Thereafter after deciding the objections, the respondent authority may proceed with the recovery against the petitioner in accordance with law.
9. With the said direction the writ petition is dispose of finally.
10. The certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned Counsel for the petitioner by tomorrow on the payment of usual charges.
