Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 21 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Applications: A Nos. 1530, 1531, 1714, 1715 of 2026 and A No. 273 of 2026 filed by various defendants (FRETLOG India Pvt. Ltd., John Praveen Reginold, Pradeep ARS Alwar, Muharrem Dursun) seeking leave to defend C.S.(Comm.Div) No. 205/2025 and, in some cases, to implead a third party.
  • Respondent/Plaintiff: M/s. TMT Cold Storage Private Limited, authorized signatory Mr. C. Karthikeya.
  • Additional Party: Lloyd Insulations (India) Limited appears as a third party in A No. 273.
  • Nature of Suit: Recovery of money for warehousing services and customs bond obligations. The plaintiff claims a sum of Rs 1,616,595/- based on accepted tariff, invoices, and part payments made by the defendants.
  • Key Allegations:
  • Plaintiffs allege defendants used the plaintiff’s cold‑storage warehouse within the customs area and failed to pay customs duty, leading to a notice from the Customs Authority.
  • Defendants argue the suit does not arise from a bill of exchange, hundi, or promissory note, but from disputed warehouse charges, customs bond obligations, and third‑party liability, making the issues mixed fact‑law questions.
  • Defendants contend the third‑party importer is liable for customs duty and should be impleaded; plaintiffs contend the liability is independent of the third party and that impleadment is unnecessary.
  • Counsel: Applicants represented by Mr. S.P. Sudharshan; respondents represented by Mr. B. Janakiram.

Court Reasoning

1. The Court examined the submissions and the material on record, noting that the cause of action stems from the defendants’ use of the plaintiff’s cold‑storage facility and the resulting customs duty notice.

2. The plaint indicates that the stored goods belong to a third‑party importer, and a notice for non‑payment of customs duty has been issued to that importer.

3. The Court observed that the issues raised by the defendants—contentious warehouse charges, customs bond obligations, and third‑party liability—are indeed triable mixed issues of fact and law.

4. Consequently, there is no impediment to granting the leave sought by the defendants to defend the suit.

5. Regarding impleadment, the Court noted that the third party appears prima facie necessary to the lis, given the customs notice, and therefore the application to implead should be allowed after leave to defend is granted.

6. No order as to costs was made.

Final Outcome

  • The Madras High Court granted leave to the defendants (applicants in A Nos. 1530, 1531, 1714, 1715) to defend C.S.(Comm.Div) No. 205/2025.
  • The Court ordered that the third‑party importer be impleaded in the suit, subject to the procedural steps after leave is granted.
  • No costs were awarded to either side.

Topics: Warehouse Charges, Customs Duty Liability