Allowed

The Board of Trustees of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust v. Reliance Silicones (I) Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Jul 2013S/1696/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an undefended suit filed by the Port of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, the High Court of Bombay decreed the plaintiff's prayer for recovery of the monetary deficit resulting from the forced auction of imported goods left uncleared by the defendants beyond the statutory or contractual time limit. The court noted the defendants' failure to file a written statement.

What did the court decide?

Decreed the suit and ordered the defendants to pay the shortfall of Rs. 1,54,30,278/ with interest @18% p.a., along with costs.

The Board of Trustees of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust Vs… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

s-1696.01.doc

¶2

ppn 1

¶3

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

¶4

SUIT NO.1696 OF 2001

¶5

The Board of Trustees of the Port of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust

¶6

.. Plaintiff

¶7

Vs.

¶8

M/s. Reliance Silicones (I) Ltd. & Anr. .. Defendants

¶9

Mr. P.N. Singh i/by Mr.Vyas & Bhalwal for the Plaintiff. None for the defendants.

¶10

CORAM : N.M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 15 JULY 2013

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

. The plaintiff has filed a suit seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.1,54,30,278/- with interest @18% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till payment or realisation.

¶13

The plaintiff is a statutory corporation constituted under the provisions of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. The plaintiff is required to take charge of the goods which are landed from the ships coming to Nhava Sheva, Navi Mumbai. The 1^st defendant is a limited company. The 2^nd defendant is a firm. The 1^st defendant and 2^nd defendant are importers / owners / consignees of the consignment which is subject matter of the suit.

¶14

In or about March 1998, the 1^st defendant imported a consignment of drums of Syltro through the vessel ZIM INDIA. The goods were discharged by the said vessel at Nhava Sheva Port on 2

¶15

ppn 2 s-1696.01.doc

¶16

March 1998. The requisite documentation was prepared and the 1^st defendant who was importer / owner / consignee and the 2^nd defendant who was bailor / owner / agent respectively were under obligation to clear the said consignment within 60 days. Since the consignment was not cleared over 2 months, the plaintiff issued a notice on 6 May 1998 and another notice on 16 May 1998 informing the defendants that the goods would be sold by public auction. Accordingly, an advertisement was issued in the newspapers and the reserve price was fixed at Rs.1,18,78,113.10 ps. The said consignment was sold on 24 March 1999 for Rs.3,10,000/- and, therefore, there was a short fall of Rs.1,15,68,113.10 ps. The plaintiff accordingly called upon the defendants to pay these amounts which amounts were not paid, hence the present suit is filed.

¶17

Since the suit was transferred to the list of “Undefended Suits” by an order passed by the Prothonotary & Senior Master, the 2^nd defendant thereafter took out a notice of motion (L) No.128 of 2012 seeking condonation of delay in filing written statement. By order dated 26 April 2013, the notice of motion was rejected. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff states that he is not aware whether any appeal is filed against this order. None appears for the defendants when the matter is called out. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff has placed on record affidavit of evidence and the compilation of the documents. Witness of the plaintiff is present.

¶18

I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and I have perused the plaint and the relevant annexures. The defendants were under obligation to clear the goods within the stipulated period

¶19

ppn 3 s-1696.01.doc

¶20

which they failed to do so and the goods were accordingly sold. It is placed on record that the goods were sold at Rs.3,10,000/- as against the reserve price of Rs.1,18,78,113.10 ps. in a deficit of Rs.1,15,68,113.0 ps. The defendants are under obligation to clear a short fall. No written statement is filed. Averments made in the plaint are uncontroverted.

¶21

In the circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for. Accordingly, the suit is decreed in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶22

After the true copies of the documents are placed on record to the satisfaction of the office, the original documents to be returned to the plaintiff.

¶23

N.M. JAMDAR, J.

The Board of Trustees of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust v. Reliance Silicones (I) Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Board of Trustees of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust v. Reliance Silicones (I) Ltd. and Ors.

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

Saikkrupa Photo Offset Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Percept Picture Company (a Division of Percept Limited)

Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. Vs Catrack Entertainment Ltd.

Rana M. Patel Vs Capital Controls India Private Limited Cin No. U33130MH1995PTC094424

Sarojben N. Shah and Ors. Vs the Stock Exchange, Mumbai and Ors.

I. C. I. C. I. Bank Limited Vs Official Liquidator Delhi High Court as Liquidator of Onida Finance Limited and Ors.

K.Raheja Estates Pvt.Ltd. Vs Chandru L.Raheja and Ors. Infinity Malls Pvt. Ltd.