Dismissed

M/S. Hazel Metals and Minerals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice (Dept of Legal Affairs) and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Feb 2014WP/9684/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a commercial transaction involving supply of scrap, alleging containers contained broken glass. The petition sought directions for correspondence production and complaint filing. The Court held this was a commercial dispute and declined to entertain the writ.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's petition is rejected as it pertains to a commercial transaction requiring appropriate contractual remedies.

M/S. Hazel Metals and Minerals Pvt… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2014)

wp9684

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.9684 OF 2013

¶5

M/s.Hazel Metals & Minerals
Pvt.Ltd....Petitioner
vs.
Union of India and others...Respondents

¶6

Mr.Vivek Kantawala with Ms Sneha Nanandkar with Ms
Urvi i/b Vivek Kantawala & Co. for the Petitioner
Ms M.P.Thakur, AGP for respondent No.2
Ms Pooja Kapadia, Mr.Shashank Trivedi, Ms Smriti Jha
i/b Mulla & Mulla & CBC for the respondent No.4.

¶7

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 M.S.SONAK, JJ.
DATE : FEBRUARY 21, 2014

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

1The petitioners are relying upon the contract
entered into by them for supply of 480 metric tons
of heavy metal scrap and Aluminum Scrap. The
contract was entered into with a party in South
Korea. The consignment was shipped to India. The
case of the petitioners is that the survey report
revealed that the containers were stuffed with
broken glass pieces and not a single iota of steel
scrap was evidenced from the containers.

¶10

2The substantive reliefs claimed in the petition
read thus:

¶11

“(a)to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any
other Writ or Order in the nature of
Mandamus by calling upon the Respondents to

¶12

2 wp9684

¶13

produce the correspondence between the
Petitioners and the Respondent before this
Hon'ble Court and/or suitable directions be
passed so as to decide the matter
expeditiously and/or take the further
action in the matter.

¶14

(b) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any
other Writ or Order in the nature of
Mandamus by calling upon the Respondent
No.3 to pursue the Written Complaint of the
petitioners with Korean Company i.e World
Recycle Co. to investigate and subsequently
file the detailed Report before this
Hon'ble Court.”

¶15

3As far as prayer (b) is concerned, it is
obvious that a writ cannot be issued to the third
respondent which is the Consulate of the South Korea
in India.

¶16

4The entire petition is based on a commercial
transaction entered into by the petitioner. If the
person with whom the contract is made has committed
a breach thereof, the petitioners will have to adopt
appropriate remedy.

¶17

5The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the Government of India should provide
machinery for ensuring that such incidents are not
repeated.

¶18

3 wp9684

¶19

6The entire petition is based on a commercial
transaction entered into by the petitioner. At
highest, it can be said that the party in foreign
country with whom the petitioner has entered into a
contract has committed a breach of the contract.
Therefore, at the instance of the petitioner, a
writ as prayed for cannot be issued. The learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the relief
may be moulded.

¶20

7This petition is based on a commercial
transaction. It is for the petitioner to adopt
appropriate remedy on the basis of the contract.
Hence, we decline to entertain this petition.
Petition is rejected.

M/S. Hazel Metals and Minerals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice (Dept of Legal Affairs) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Hazel Metals and Minerals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice (Dept of Legal Affairs) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devendra Gopinand Ughade Vs Vijaya Devendra Ughade

Mr. Arun Baburao Paritekar Vs Mr. Baburao Masoji Paritekar and Ors.

Mr. Arun Baburao Paritekar Vs Mr. Baburao Masoji Paritekar and Ors.

M/S. Mangesh Filteration, through Directors and Anr. Vs Maharashtra State Finance Corporation and Anr.