Allowed

The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Poonam Woolen Mills Ltd. andORS

Bombay HC15 Jul 2009S/3634/1988

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court decreed a suit filed by the Port of Bombay for recovery of pre-confiscation port trust charges. It held that the defendants were liable as owners/bailors under the Major Port Trusts Act and allowed recovery of the principal amount with interest at 9%.

What did the court decide?

The suit was decreed with modification to award interest at 9% p.a. on the principal sum of Rs.8,41,412/ from the date of the suit.

The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs Poonam Woolen Mills… — Partition | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

SUIT NO. 3634 OF 1988

¶4

The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay

¶5

..Plaintiff

¶6

versus

¶7

Poonam Woollen Mills & Anr.

¶8

..Defendants

¶9

Mr. U. J. Makhija with Mr. Parag Khandhar i/b. M/s. Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe for Plaintiff.

¶10

None for Defendants.

¶11

CORAM : DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD , J. DATED : 15TH JULY, 2009.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

The suit has been instituted on 17^th May 1988 by the Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay for recovery of pre-confiscation charges in

¶14

the amount of Rs.9,47,000/- together with interest at the rate of 15%.

¶15

In or about May 1985 the 2^nd Defendant as an agent of a vessel discharged into the custody of the Plaintiff two consignments, one consisting of 36 bales and the other consisting of 35 bales containing woolen rags. Prior to the berthing of the vessel, the 2^nd Defendant had

¶16

¶17

furnished to the Plaintiff an Import General Manifest dated 17^th May 1985 wherein the consignments were manifested at Item Nos. 73 and 74. The General Landing Date and the Last Free Day of the cargo were 18^th May 1985 and 22^nd May 1985 respectively.

¶18

The 1^st Defendants were the importers / consignees / owners of the two consignments and the 2^nd Defendant was the bailor and as such owner within the meaning of the expression in Section 2(o) of the Major Port Trusts Act as amended. The case of the Plaintiffs is that the Defendants were therefore bound and liable to take delivery within seven clear days on the payment of the Port Trust charges which had accrued in accordance with the Docks Scale of Rates. The Defendants failed to clear the consignments.

¶19

By two orders both dated 16^th August 1986 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, the consignments were ordered to be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The consignment incurred Port Trust charges from 22^nd May 1985 until 5^th August 1986. The total Wharfage amounted to Rs.446/- and demurrage amounted to Rs.4,17,500/-. The Plaintiff also incurred Sale Warehousing charges of Rs.560/- and Transportation charges of Rs.2,200/-. The total Port Trust charges consequently amounted to Rs.4,20,706/-.

¶20

¶21

By a letter dated 3^rd July 1987 the Plaintiffs called upon the Defendants to pay the accrued Port Trust charges. This was followed by letters dated 26^th September 1987 and 11^th August 1987. The demand made by the Plaintiffs was reiterated by letters dated 22^nd August 1987, 26^th September 1987 and 7^th October 1987. The Plaintiffs addressed the aforesaid letters of demand. The 2^nd Defendants declined to pay the amount demanded.

¶22

A Written Statement has been filed by the 2^nd Defendant. The following issues has been drawn up:

¶23

Whether the Plaintiffs prove that Defendant No.2 is the owner / bailor of the suit consignment as stated in paragraph 7 of the Plaint?

¶24

Whether the pre-confiscation charges of 2 suit consignments amounted to Rs.4,20,706.16 on each consignment as stated in paragraph 7 of the plaint?

¶25

Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 8,41,412/- being the pre-confiscation port trust charges in respect of first and second suit consignment together with a sum of Rs. 1,05,588/- being interest @ 15% p.a. From 3^rd July 1987 till 14^th May 2008 aggregating to Rs.9,47,000/- as stated in paragraph 20 of the plaint?

¶26

To what reliefs, if any, are the Plaintiffs entitled?

¶27

¶28

5. What order ?

¶29

The Plaintiffs have relied upon an Affidavit in lieu of Examination-inchief of Mr. S. M. Deshmukh, who is the Assistant Docks Manager, and on a compilation of the original documents. The witness for the Plaintiff has verified the correctness of what is stated in the affidavit. On 29^th June 2009 and 6^th July 2009 directions were issued by the Court by which the Defendants were furnished with an opportunity to cross-examine the witness of the Plaintiff. The Defendants and their Advocates have remained absent. The examination of the Plaintiff’s witness has in the circumstances been concluded.

¶30

Re : Issue No. 1 : The Plaintiff has duly established that both the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants are owners of the suit consignments by virtue of the definition of the expression contained in Section 2(o) of the Major Port Trust Act 1963, as amended.

¶31

Re : Issue No. 2 : The pre-confiscation charges have been duly

¶32

proved on the basis of the evidence of Mr. S. M. Deshmukh, Assistant Docks Manager. The witness has duly deposed to the computation of the charges in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Examination-in-Chief. The computation has been made on the basis of the Docks Scale of Rates. The

¶33

¶34

Working Sheets have also been produced at Item Nos. 16 of the compilation. The claim has therefore been proved.

¶35

In view of the answer to Issue Nos. 1 and 2, Issue No. 3 will have to be answered in the affirmative. The suit shall accordingly stand decreed in terms of prayer clause (a) with the modification that the Plaintiff will be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% on the principal sum of Rs.8,41,412/from the date of the suit until payment or realisation.

¶36

(DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.)

The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Poonam Woolen Mills Ltd. andORS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Poonam Woolen Mills Ltd. andORS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of India Vs Ashok Kantilal Joshi and Ors.

Canara Bank Vs M/S.Empee Enterprises and Ors.

Akash Enterprise Thru Ashok Varma Vs A.K. Agnecies

Padmabai Ratanshi Trust. Vs M/S.Tha.Liladhar Pursottam and Anr.

Padmabai Ratanshi Trust. Vs M/S.Ruparel Brothers and Anr.

Keith Pereira Vs Hetu Ishwarlal Parikh