Allowed

The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Radhakrishnan Gupta

Bombay HC21 Jun 2006S/682/1977

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The defendant failed to take delivery of consigned goods within the stipulated time, leading to their confiscation by Customs Authorities. The plaintiff filed an undefended suit to recover demurrage charges. The court found that the documents established the plaintiffs' claim and decreed the suit.

What did the court decide?

The Suit is decreed in terms of prayer clauses (a) & (b) of the plaint. Decree drawn accordingly.

The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

 SUIT NO. 682 OF 1977

¶4

 The Board of Trustees of the

¶5

 Port of Bombay. ...Plaintiffs

¶6

 Versus

¶7

 Radha Krishna Gupta ...Defendant

¶8

 Mr. Manjee i/b. Mula & Mulla for the Plaintiffs.

¶9

 None for Defendants.

¶10

 CORAM: S.K.SHAH,J.

¶11

 DATE : 21st June,2006.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

 1. The suit is undefended against the defendants.

¶14

 The plaintiffs have filed the documents in support of
 the claim. The claim of the plaintiffs is for
 demurrage charges before before confiscation of the
 goods by the Customs Authorities. The consignment
 belonging to the defendants landed at the Docks from
 the ship s.s. "Exbrook". It was a consignment of 21
 cases of glass lenses and flat glass manifested under
 Item No.AM 204 of IGM No.13950. The said 21 cases

¶15

 were consigned to the defendants as the owner thereof.
 The defendants failed and neglected to take delivery
 of the said cases within 7 days from the date of

¶16

 landing thereof.

¶17

 2. On 4.11.1974, the Customs Authorities confiscated
 those cases. By letter dated 21.3.1975, the
 plaintiffs made a demand of Rs.48,345/- being the
 demurrage charges pre-confiscation of goods. Since
 the defendants failed to pay the amount, they filed
 the present suit.

¶18

 3. In additino to the above, the plaintiffs have in
 September 1974 effected another consignment of 56
 cases containing flat glasses manifested also arrived
 in September, 1974. The same was also confiscation by
 the Customs Authorities. They demanded demurrage
 charges of Rs.20,400/-, but the defendants failed to
 paythe same. Ultimately, they demanded a sum of
 Rs.68,745/- but the defendants failed and neglected to
 pay the same. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the
 suit for recovery of the said amount.

¶19

 4. In support of their claim, the plaintiffs have
 produced Working Sheet in respect of 21 cases as also
 Working Sheet in respect of 26 cases which mention the
 date of arrival and claimed the amount of demurrage
 charges bya registered notice of demand of the
 plaintiffs.

¶20

 5. These documents therefore, establish the claim of

¶21

 the plaintiffs as against the defendants.

¶22

 6. Hence, the Suit is decreed in terms of prayer

¶23

 clauses (a) & (b) of the plaint.

¶24

 Decree be drawn accordingly.

¶25

---

¶26

 (S.K.SHAH,J.)

The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Radhakrishnan Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Radhakrishnan Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Sureshbhai Bhojani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pune Zilla Sahakari Dudh U. Sangh Maryadit and Ors. Vs State of Maharaashtra and Ors.

Shri.Arun Shamrao Thakar Vs Shri.Ramesh Dattatray More and Anr.

M/S Metal Marketing Co. Vs Assam Pharma Co.and Ors.

Sarvajanik Shikshan Sanstha Vs Alfred Ashtamkar

Kanaiyalal Jethanand Khatri Vs Vasudev S. Khatri Andors