In below mcq on seizure of goods..... authorities will not have right to access of goods....how it will become bailment.
Possession of the goods is transferred to the custom authorities. Hence, is bailment. Use / access is not an essential criteria. As per Section 148, bailment is the delivery of goods by one person to another for some purpose, upon a contract, that the goods shall, when the purpose is accomplished, be returned or otherwise disposed of according to the directions of the person delivering them.
But possession itself means right to access na sir...but in this case no right to access for customs authorities then mere custody doesnot amounts to delivary and subsequently doesnot amount to bailment?
No. Possession doesn't mean right to access. It may or may not. Hiring a carriage etc. would involve right to use, but in some cases of bailment, it may not. Say one gives a car for repair, it's bailment, but that doesn't mean repairer gets right to use it. One gives a shirt for stitching / altering, doesn't mean tailor can wear / use. So right to use is not the criteria for bailment. You are right, mere custody doesn't amount to bailment like ornaments in a bank's locker. But in this case, seizure is possession and hence terms of bailment applies. In fact, there has been judicial history of such cases of seizure and courts have held its bailment. Hence, authorities are to take reasonable care of goods, not to dispose off before the matter is decided and even return the goods, if final order is made.