Allowed

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

Bombay HC15 Mar 2013S/235/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an undefended suit, the court, on the basis of the plaintiff's affidavit and documents, deemed the defendants' averments as admitted. The plaintiff, a port trust, sought recovery of outstanding charges for a consignment that remained uncleared by the defendants, leading to an auction and a deficit. The court decreed the suit and granted interest.

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed in terms of prayer clause (a); interest @ 12% per annum from date of decree till payment; costs and refund of court fees as per rules; return of original documents within two weeks.

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

¶1

.. 1 ..

¶2

14-Suit-235/01

¶3

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

¶4

SUIT NO.235 OF 2001

¶5

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,

¶6

a body corporate constituted under the provisions of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963 as amended by the provisions of the Major Port Trusts Amendment Act, 1974 and having their Bombay office at 1107, Raheja Centre, 214, FPJ Marg, Mumbai – 400 021 and a Container Terminal Office at New Bombay.

¶7

... Plaintiff.

¶8

V/s.

¶9

1. Reliance Silicones (I) Ltd.,

¶10

a company registered under company Act 1956, having their office at A-12-13 MIDC Industrial Estate, T.T.C, Thane

¶11

2. M/s Arbee Star Maritime Ag.,

¶12

having their office at Imperial Chambers, 3^rd floor, Wilson Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 038.

¶13

... Defendants.

¶14

Mr P.N.Singh i/b M/s Vyas & Bhalwal for the Plaintiff.

¶15

Mr Ramakant Bamne, Junior Engineer, J.N.P.T. P.W.1 present.

¶16

CORAM : R.D.DHANUKA J. DATED : MARCH 15, 2013.

¶17

P.C.

¶18

By an order dated 4^th December 2007 passed by Addl. Prothonotary

¶19

1/4

¶20

Asmita

¶21

.. 2 .. 14-Suit-235/01

¶22

and Senior Master, suit is transferred to undefended suit against the defendants.

¶23

Mr Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff tenders affidavit of Mr R. I. Bamne, Jr. Engineer, J.N.P.T. in lieu of examination-in-chief affirmed on 8^th March 2013 with compilation of documents, which are taken on record.

¶24

None appeared for the defendants though served. No written

¶25

statement is filed.

¶26

In the month of March 1998, the first defendant imported a consignment of 414 Drums which was manifested at Item No.14 of the Import General Manifest No.593 of the vessel “ZIM INDIA” which vessel was discharged into the docks at Nhava Sheva Port on 2^nd March 1998. The first and second defendants were the importers/consignees/owners of the said consignment and were bound and liable to take delivery of and clear the said consignment within two months. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants however, failed and neglected to clear the said consignment which remained in the custody of the plaintiff. The plaintiff by their notice dated 6^th May 1998, followed by notice dated 16^th May 1998 called upon the defendants to pay accrued charges within

¶27

2/4

¶28

Asmita

¶29

.. 3 .. 14-Suit-235/01

¶30

10 days from the receipt thereof and threatened to auction the consignment under the provisions of The Major Port Trust Act. As the defendants did not pay the accrued charges, plaintiff auctioned the said consignment. After realizing the sale proceeds of the consignment, still there was deficit of Rs.1,06,77,939.45 towards the Port Trust charges, Customs Duty, expenses of sale etc. as set out in paragraph 7 of the plaint.

¶31

The plaintiff issued a legal notice on 26^th October 1999 for demanding the arrears. There was no payment made by the defendants in response to the said notice.

¶32

On perusal of the plaint, documents annexed thereto and the affidavit of Mr R.I.Bamne in lieu of examination-in-chief affirmed on 8^th March 2013 and the documents forming part of compilation, I am of the view that plaintiff has proved its claim as prayed in the plaint. As none appeared for the defendants nor written statement is filed, the averments made in the plaint are deemed to have been admitted. I, therefore pass the following order.

¶33

(i) Suit is decreed in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶34

(ii) It is however, made clear that the plaintiff would be entitled to claim

¶35

interest @ 12% per annum for the date of decree till payment.

3/4

Asmita

14-Suit-235/01

.. 4 ..

(iii) Costs and refund of court fees would be as per rules.

¶41

(iv) Office is directed to return the original documents within two weeks of the plaintiff's filing certified copies of the documents.

¶42

( R.D.DHANUKA, J.)

¶43

4/4

¶44

Asmita

The Board of Trustees of the Port 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 the Port 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajinkyatara Sahakari Sakhara Karkhana Ltd. Vs Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Ajinkyatara Sahakari Sakhara Karkhana Ltd. Vs Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Abc (Arabic Broadcast Content ) Abc Marketing and Distribution Vs Aakaash Productions @ Aakaash Films Pvt. Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Rashmi Housing Pvt. Ltd. Vs Essel Sports Pvt. Ltd.

Leaseplan India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Alkem Laboratories Ltd.

Ut Worldwide (India) Private Limited Vs the Abhinav Sahakari Bank Limited and 6 Ors.