Czarnikow Group Limited Vs The Additional Director General of

Czarnikow Group Limited A Company incorporated under the laws of United Kingdom, Paternoster House, 65, St.Paul's Churchyard, London EC4M 8AB, United Kingdom Represented by its power of attorney holder Yerramallu Venkateshwar Naresh Kumar No.34-141/102, Mythili Residency, Bharani Colony, Sainikpuri, Hyderabad – 500 094.

¶12

.. Petitioner

¶13

vs

¶14

1.The Additional Director General of Foreign Trade

¶15

The Directorate General of Foreign Trade,

¶16

4^th Floor, Shastri Bhavan Annexe, 26, Haddows Road, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 006.

¶17

2.The Commissioner of Customs,

¶18

5, Williams Rd, Melapudur, Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu 620 001.

¶19

3.M/s. Thiru Arooran Sugars Limited, 112, Nungambakkam High Road, Eldorado 5^th Floor, Nungambakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 034,

¶20

Rep. by its Resolution Professional.

¶21

4.M/s. Shri Ambika Sugars Ltd., Nungambakkam High Road, Eldorado 5^th Floor,

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

1/6

¶24

W.P.No.17347 of 2020

¶25

.. Respondents

¶26

Nungambakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 034. Rep. by its Resolution Professional.

¶27

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for records culminating in proceedings in MA 1102/2019 in IBA 243/2019 and MA 1328/2019 in MA 1102/2019 in IBA 243/2019 pending before the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench and quash the same and consequently, direct respondent no.1 and 2 to permit the petitioner to reexport of 2542.50 MT of Refined Sugar (which is the subject matter of the present proceedings) supplied under the Contract dated 26.10.2016 currently in Pennadum or whichever warehouse, this Court has permitted the Refined Sugar to be relocated to.

¶28

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Sivanandaraaj, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Kaushik Ramaswamy For Respondents : No appearance for R1 Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Senior Standing Counsel for R2 Mr.S.Venkatasubramaniam for Mr.B.Dhanaraj for R3 Mr.N.P.Vijayakumar, for R4

¶29

ORDER

¶30

(Order of the Court was made by Dr. ANITA SUMANTH.,J)

¶31

Read this order in continuation of and in conjunction with order

¶32

dated 25.03.2025, particularly the contents of paragraph 5 thereof.

¶33

It is the say of Mr.N.P.Vijayakumar, who appears for R4 that they would have no objection to the petitioners taking possession of 2542.50 metric tonnes of the refined sugar which is presently in their warehouse, subject to the petitioner not pursuing the same claim i.e., with respect to 2542.50 metric tonnes, in any other proceeding, including

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

2/6

¶36

W.P.No.17347 of 2020

¶37

W.P.No. 21800 of 2023 and W.A.No. 1159 of 2021. This figures at paragraph 15 of the affidavit of R4 dated 26.03.2025.

¶38

In response, a memo is filed by the petitioners wherein they

¶39

confirm that no such duplicated claim shall be made which allays the apprehension of R4. The memo filed by petitioner dated 27.03.2025 is also extracted below:-

¶40

“1. The Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to (i) quash the proceedings culminating in MA 1102/2019 in IBA 243/2019, and MA1328/2019 in MA 1102/2019 in IBA 243/2019 that was pending before the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai (NCLT) and (ii) direct the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein to permit the petitioner to re-export 2,542.50 MT of refined sugar belonging to the Petitioner and stored at the warehouse belonging to 4^th respondent in Pennadam, Tamil Nadu.

¶41

2. In the above Writ Petition, the 4^th Respondent has filed an affidavit dated 26.03.2025 wherein certain proceedings in W.A.No.1159 of 2022 and W.M.P.No. 8464 of 2025 in W.P.No. 21800 of 2023 were referred to. It was alleged by the 4^th respondent in the said affidavit that the Petitioner herein had made overlapping claims for re-export of sugar in those said proceedings. In light of the said allegation, the following was stated by the 4^th respondent in the said affidavit:

¶42

“15. ... I humbly submit that the Petitioner should not be allowed to re-export the 2542 MT of processed sugar unless it is made clear that claim for such processed sugar shall not be made in pending W.P.No.21800 of 2023 and in W.A.No.1159 of 2021.”

¶43

[Emphasis Supplied]

¶44

3. In this regard, the Petitioner herein, at the outset, denies that the Petitioner has made any overlapping claims for re-export of sugar in multiple proceedings. The Petitioner, in any case, humbly submits that 2542.50 MT of refined sugar is impugned only in the present proceedings and is

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

3/6

¶47

W.P.No.17347 of 2020

¶48

not pending adjudication in any other cases which were referred to by the 4^th respondent in its affidavit dated 26.03.2025.

¶49

4. Hence, there is no reason for the Petitioner to claim the impugned quantity i.e., 2542.50 MT of refined sugar in any other procedings, and it is submitted that no such claims will be made in W.A.No. 1159 of 2022 and also in W.M.P.No.8464 of 2025 in W.P.No.21800 of 2023 by the petitioner herein.

¶50

Wherefore, this Hon'ble Court, may be pleased to take the above on record, pass appropriate orders / directions in this regard and thus render justice.”

¶51

Recording the aforesaid, this writ petition and connected

¶52

miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. Since the petitioner anticipates that there may be an agitation by other parties when the sugar is moved as permitted above, they may seek police protection in such a

¶53

case.

¶54

[A.S.M., J] [C.K., J] 27.03.2025

¶55

Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes ssm

¶56

To

¶57