Disposed

Aswin Associates v. Union of India

Kerala HC23 Nov 2022WP(C)/37126/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner approached the High Court for a writ directing the Indian Embassy at Tunisia to compel a third party to pay the balance of a commercial invoice. The court held that no statutory duty exists for foreign policy officials to recover money from commercial transactions but directed them to continue addressing the grievance.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is closed after directing the Indian officials to continue addressing the petitioner's grievance.

Aswin Associates Vs Union of India — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 23^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

W.P.(C) NO.37126 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ASWIN ASSOCIATES REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, ASWIN BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN PILLAI, DOOR NO. XIII/831 VIKAS ROAD, KARUVELIPPADI, KOCHI- 682005.

¶8

BY ADVS. C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) UTHARA A.S M.R.SUDHEENDRAN ANANDA PADMANABHAN VIJAYKRISHNAN S. MENON

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 UNION OF INDIA,

¶11

REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, NEW DELHI-110 001

¶12

2 THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶13

3 THE SECRETARY,

¶14

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶15

4 THE AMBASSADOR, INDIAN EMBASSY, TUNISIA-1002

¶16

5 FEDERATION OF INDIAN EXPORT ORGANIZATION, KERALA CHAPTER, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI-672009, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR.

¶17

-2-

¶18

W.P.(C) NO.37126 OF 2022

¶19

6 EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEE CORPORATION, HDFC HOUSE, 2ND FLOOR, RAVIPURAM JUNCTION, M. G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 015 REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶20

7 STE ECO FISH SA, ROUTE DE ZARSIS KM 10, 4100, BENGARDANE, TUNISIA, REPRESENTED ITS BY DIRECTOR/CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/PROPRIETOR.

¶21

SRI. S. MANU, DSGI

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

-3-

¶24

W.P.(C) NO.37126 OF 2022

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Dated this the 23^rd day of November, 2022

¶27

The petitioner exported two containers of frozen skip Jack Tuna 'whole around' worth 39,900 US Dollars to Tunisia based on the order placed by the 7^th respondent. After taking delivery, the 7^th respondent paid the price of only one container. Despite the petitioner's best efforts, the 7^th respondent did not pay the balance amount. Therefore, the petitioner sought the intervention of the Indian Embassy at Tunisia. The Indian Embassy official addressed letters to the 7^th respondent as also the Government of Tunisia. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Indian Embassy at Tunisia to take effective measures for compelling the 7^th respondent to make the payment.

¶28

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Central Government Counsel.

¶29

From the documents produced, it is seen that the Indian Embassy officials are doing whatever is possible within

¶30

the limits of their power. Although learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that our foreign policy require the officials to

¶31

-4-

¶32

W.P.(C) NO.37126 OF 2022

¶33

take more effective action against the 7^th respondent, I am not inclined to accept that contention, since no statutory duty is cast on the Embassy officials or the foreign affairs department to recover the money due under a commercial transaction. Even then, Indian officials at Tunisia having taken up the issues with all concerned, they may continue to do so, so that the petitioner's grievance is addressed properly.

¶34

The writ petition is closed accordingly.

Sd/-

V.G. ARUN JUDGE

bpr

-5-

W.P.(C) NO.37126 OF 2022

¶40

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37126/2022

¶41

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶42

Exhibit P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE A TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE DATED 30/04/2018 OF THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P2	A TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 26/02/2020
Exhibit P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL ISSUED DATED 18/09/2020 FORWARDED BY INDIAN EMBASSY
Exhibit P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 30/12/2020 MADE BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 6/1/2021BY THE FEDERATION OF INDIAN EXPORT ORGANISATION TO THE INDIAN EMBASSY (TRADE TUNISIA)
Exhibit P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21/01/2021 SENT BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 1/2/2021 ISSUED BY THE MARKETING HEAD OF INDIAN EMBASSY
Exhibit P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 1/2/2021 SENT BY THE STATE HEAD OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 2/2/2021BY THE AMBASSADOR OF INDIAN EMBASSY
Exhibit P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16/06/2021 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE AMBASSADOR OF INDIAN EMBASSY
Exhibit P11	A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 19/08/2021 SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶43

-6-

¶44

W.P.(C) NO.37126 OF 2022

¶45

Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19/08/2021 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE AMBASSADOR OF EMBASSY OF INDIA Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 19/08/2021 FROM THE SECOND SECRETARY (COMMERCE) TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 26/08/2021 FROM THE SECOND SECRETARY (COMMERCE) TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 03/03/2022 SENT BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 30/03/2022 FROM INDIAN EMBASSY.

Aswin Associates v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aswin Associates v. Union of India

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

Sophiya J. Vs the Director of Medical Education

Geetha Parameswaran, Vs State of Kerala

Kerala State Electricity Board Petty Contractors and Line Workers Union Rep. by Secretary Vs Chairman and Managing Director, Kerala State Electricity Board - Kseb

Jose Antony Vs Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath

Ajims Mohammed Vs State of Kerala

Uralungal Labour Contract Co-Operative Society Ltd., Vs State of Kerala