Disposed

Speedy Multimedia Limited and Anr. v. Tariff Authority for Major Ports

Bombay HC11 Aug 2008WP/1879/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Bombay directed petitioner CFS operators to approach the Tariff Authority for Major Ports to reconsider the revised tariff rates after considering their objections and documentary evidence. The court kept all contentions open as it did not adjudicate on merits. An interim order is extended during the authority's review.

What did the court decide?

Directive to approach Respondent No.1 for tariff review; extension of interim order; disposal of petition.

Speedy Multimedia Limited and Anr. Vs Tariff… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1879 OF 2007

¶4

Speedy Multimodes Ltd.& Anr...Petitioners
V/s.
Tariff Authority for Major Ports..Respondents

¶5

Mr. E.P. Bharucha, Sr.Adv. with Dhumi Patel i/by
Federal & Rashmikant for the Petitioners.
Mr.S.Venkiteswaran, Sr.Adv. i/by V. Subramaniam for the
Respondents.

¶6

CORAM : SHRI J.N.PATEL &
SHRI K.K.TATED, JJ.
DATE : 11ST AUGUST, 2008.

¶7

P.C.:

¶8

.Heard learned counsel for the parties. The
Petitioners have approached this Court being aggrieved
by order dated 28th June, 2007, which led to the
Respondents to fix the Scale of Rates for Container
Freight Station (CFS) operators, reduction of 15% in the
existing scale of rates, which according to them is not
justifiable as it is based on uneconomical, unreasonable
and erroneous principle.

¶9

2.It is the contention of the learned counsel for
the Petitioners that CFS tariff should be treated alike
both in privileges conferred and liability imposed. The
basic criteria in placing the tariff has to be based on

¶10

: 2 :

¶11

various factors, which have not been taken into
consideration while fixing the tariff.

¶12

3.It was submitted that the authorities have
failed to take cognizance of the increasing inputs of
the Petitioner like settlement with Labour Union and
that if the Respondent is directed to reconsider their
decision afresh after giving an opportunity of being
heard to the Petitioners, the Petitioners can very well
approach the Respondents in the matter.

¶13

4.The learned counsel for the Respondents on the
other hand, has justified the tariff on the ground that
they have taken proper view in the matter and have
revised tariff by reducing the same by flat rate of 15%
in fixing the revised tariff.

¶14

5.In our view, it will be appropriate on the part
of the Petitioners to approach Respondent No.1 which is
a Statutory Authority in the matter for fixing the
tariff in accordance with rules (BY JNPT).

¶15

6.Therefore, we direct the Petitioners to move the
Respondents in the matter and on such application being
made, the Respondent would take into consideration the

¶16

: 3 :

¶17

material placed on record by the Petitioners and if
required allow them to tender documentary evidence in
support of their contention and review tariff rates
fixed by them in accordance with rules.

¶18

7.The Petitioners state that they would apply to
the Respondent No.1 within a period of two weeks. On
such application being made, the concerned authority
will dispose off the same within a period of eight
weeks.

¶19

8.In the meantime, the interim order passed by the
Court on 22nd August, 2007 by the learned single Judge
of this Court shall continue for a period of four weeks
after the Respondent No.1 takes a decision in the matter
and the same is communicated to the Petitioners.

¶20

9.Needless to say that as this Court has directed
the Petitioners to approach Respondent No.1 in the
matter, all issues and contentions raised in this
Petition are kept open, as this Court has not
adjudicated the matter on merits.

¶21

10.The Petition stands disposed off accordingly.

¶22

: 4 :

¶23

(J.N. Patel, J.)

¶24

(K.K. Tated, J.)

Speedy Multimedia Limited and Anr. v. Tariff Authority for Major Ports

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Speedy Multimedia Limited and Anr. v. Tariff Authority for Major Ports

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

Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Venkat T. Pal and Ors. Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Villayati Ram Mittal Vs Slum Rehabilitation Authority

Shivshai Pratishtan and Anr. Vs the Municipalc Orpn. of Gr. Mumbai and Anr.

Sumer Tower No. 5 Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 5 Ors.