Dismissed

M/S.Sontex Rolled Bandage v. the Managing Director

Madras HC6 Apr 2011WP/23583/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging rejection of bleached gauze goods and seeking permission to lift them was dismissed. The Court held the petition was misconceived as criminal investigation into quality standards and unauthorized manufacture was pending, rendering return of goods unsustainable under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

M/S.Sontex Rolled Bandage Vs the Managing… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 06.04.2011

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU

¶5

W.P.No.23583 of 2010

¶6

& M.P.No.1 of 2010

¶7

1 M/S.SONTEX ROLLED BANDAGE WORKS 15-C SECTOR B, SANWER ROAD INDUSTRIAL AREA, INDORE MADHYA PRADESH REP BY ITS PARTNER MR.B.K. SONI [ PETITIONER ] Vs 1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR TAMILNADU MEDICAL SERVICES CORPORATION LTD (A GOVT.OF TAMILNADU UNDERTAKING) 417, 2ND FLOOR, PANTHEON ROAD EGMORE, CHENNAI 8 2 THE DIRECTOR OF DRUGS CONTROL (TAMILNADU) 359 ANNA SALAI DMS COMPOUND CHENNAI 6 [ RESPONDENTS ]

¶8

Prayer : Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd respondents and their men agents and subordinates to permit the lifting of the bleached gauze cloth goods of the petitioner from the various godowns of the 1st respondent in Tamilnadu as per the list furnished by the 1st respondent in its letter dated 27.8.2010 and 23.9.2010 immediately to be transported to Indore.

¶9

For Petitioner :: Mr.Silambanan, Sr.counsel for M/s.PROFEXS Associates

¶10

For Respondents :: Mr.G.Sankaran, AGP for R1 Mr.A.Suresh for R2

¶11

The petitioner is the firm, having its manufacturing unit at Indore, Madhya Pradesh. They got the contract for supply of bleached

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

gauze cloths. Pursuant to the order placed by the 1st respondent Corporation, they made supplies. They were stocked in various godowns kept by the 1st respondent, who is the channelizing agent for supply of Drugs and other materials in the Government run hospitals in the State of Tamil Nadu. It transpires that supply allegedly made by the petitioner firm was of substandard quality and is not made as per the standards laid down by the 1st respondent. Therefore, the 1st respondent rejected the goods supplied by the petitioner. The petitioner firm has not challenged the rejection of their goods allegedly supplied by them as they were poor quality.

¶14

On the other hand, the 2nd respondent Department received a complaint that the goods supplied in the name of bleached gauze cloth were actually not manufactured by the petitioner firm at Indore. But, they were turned out at Tamil Nadu and some firms in Virudhunagar District would be supplying the actual goods but using the brand of the petitioner firm. The investigation is in progress and two such manufacturers have also approached this Court in Criminal Original Petitions 13831 and 13909 of 2010 challenging the show cause notice issued by the Drug Inspector, Perambur Range stating that they were actually the manufacturers of these bleached gauze cloths, which were supplied to the 1st respondent Corporation. It is also stated that those cloths, which were seized from the manufacturers, have been entrusted to the appropriate criminal court and the investigation is also in progress. These two Criminal Original Petitions were also heard along with the Writ Petition and they were dismissed by a common order today by stating that the innocence pleaded by those manufacturers cannot be gone into at the stage of show cause notice and it is for them to defend themselves before the authority by producing appropriate records to prove their innocence. It is in the backdrop of these developments, the petitioner has prayed in the Writ Petition to permit them to lift the bleached gauze cloth goods belonging to the petitioner kept in various godowns of the 1st respondent can be transported back to Indore.

¶15

In this Writ Petition, notice was ordered to the respondents on 20.10.010. On notice, the 1st respondent Corporation has filed a counter affidavit dated 'nil' (November 2010). The stand taken by the 1st respondent as reflected in para 22 is as follows: "As the issues are related to not only the quality of the material but also to the actual place of manufacture in contravention to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act which are under investigation by the Statutory authority, this respondent has to necessarily wait for the outcome of the investigation process to return the frozen stock of "Not of standard quality" product, as the issues may end up with the finding that the petitioner might have indulged in action which are

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

serious threat to the life of the patients under statutory provisions. Due to such possible consequences, the Writ Petition cannot be sustained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

¶18

Therefore, in the light of the stand taken by the 1st respondent, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief to the petitioner. The present issue is not one of mere supplying substandard goods but also authorising the persons unauthorisedly from manufacturing such goods and supplying to the State owned Corporation. Since the criminal investigation is pending and the materials have been at present seized for proper investigation, it is not as if the petitioner can approach this court only because either he will be later fixed with demurrage charge or that the 1st respondent has directed to clear the goods out of the godown.

¶19

Mr.G.Sankaran, learned Special Government Pleader and Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent Corporation has also produced a receipt of the goods seized from the various godowns, which were issued in Form 16 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules.

¶20

In view of the above, the writ petition is misconceived and
bereft of any legal reasons. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands
dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Sd/
Asst. Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst.Registrar
ajr
To
1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
TAMILNADU MEDICAL SERVICES CORPORATION LTD
(A GOVT.OF TAMILNADU UNDERTAKING)
417, 2ND FLOOR, PANTHEON ROAD, EGMORE, CHENNAI 8
2 THE DIRECTOR OF DRUGS CONTROL,(TAMILNADU), 359 ANNA SALAI
DMS COMPOUND, CHENNAI 6
1 cc To M/s.G.Sankaran, Advocate, SR.24209
2 ccs To M/S.Profexs Associates, Advocate, SR.25103

¶21

W.P.No.23583 of 2010 KSK (CO) RH (21.4.11)

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/S.Sontex Rolled Bandage v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Sontex Rolled Bandage v. the Managing Director

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

Syed Jamal, Vs the Joint Director of School

Tmt.K.P.Ranganayagi Vs the Director of Elementary

G.Srinivasan Vs the Chairperson, Adjudicating

Kodanad Estate, Vs the Principal Secretary to the

A.Subramaniam Vs the Drugs Inspector

Management, Vs the Controlling Authority