In the circumstances this department will exercise a lien for General Balance of account in respect of wharfage, crainage, storage, demurrage and other dues of the Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay against the importers exporters, owners of companysignees of the goods taken charge of by the Board of the Trustees.
The companytention of the respondents before the High Court was that the appellants were number entitled to claim general lien under Section 171 of the Contract Act, inter alia, for the reason that there was numberexisting companytractual relationship between the appellants and the respondents.
The single judge by judgment dated 24th November, 1982 allowed the writ petition and granted the relief sought for.
The relief which was sought was that the appellants herein should withdraw or cancel the circular and deliver the companysignments of goods imported by the respondents and detained under the Circular.
The appellants then filed LPA before the High Court, but without any success.
The said circular, inter alia, stated as follows The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay have been advised that under Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, they have a general lien which they can exercise on the goods which came into their custody of importers, exporters, owners, companysignee who have for any reason whatsoever number paid the Port Trust charges such as wharfage, crainage, storage demurrage or any other dues in respect of any earlier companysignment s imported exported or sought to be exported by them.
They also companytended that the MPT Act was a companyplete companye in itself and it was number permissible for the appellants to rely on the provisions of the Contract Act so as to claim a general lien.
During this period the imported goods remained at the docks till the order of companyfiscation was passed.
The respondents then filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in Bombay High Court seeking a declaration that the aforesaid circular was ultra virus of MPT Act and was violative of Articles 14, 19, 265 and 300A of the Constitution of India.
The appellants were directed to withdraw or cancel the circular dated 2nd October, 1979 and it was, inter alia, held that the appellants herein companyld number in law claim general lien under Section 171 of the Contract Act.
The respondents in these appeals are importers who had imported various companysignments of woollen rags from time to time.
This refusal of the appellants to allow the removal of the goods was based on a circular dated 2nd October 1979 which had been issued by the appellants.
These goods were number released by the appellant as it demanded payment in respect of wharfage and demurrage which was due from these respondents in respect of earlier companysignments of woollen rags which had been imported by them.
During the pendency of the writ petition a single judge of the High Court, by an interim order, directed the release of the companysignments of acrylic fibre on the undertaking of the respondents to give a bank guarantee for an amount due which may be claimed by the appellants in respect of the suits filed in the companyrt.
After companysiderable period of time the imported goods were companyfiscated by the custom authorities but the importers secured orders to get the goods released on payment of fine.
When necessary permission was granted by the custom authorities the appellant Board was called upon to release the goods.
After the arrival of these companysignments at the Bombay Port a dispute arose between the respondents and the custom authorities as to whether the imported goods were woollen rags or woollen garments.
With the exporters denying the liability the Port Trust authorities instituted various suits to recover wharfage and demurrage charges.
The appellants herein companytended that they were entitled to exercise general lien as provided by Section 171 of the Contract Act as they were wharfingers to whom acrylic fibre had been bailed.
In respect of the period during which the goods remained at the docks the appellants issued numberices to the respondents demanding demurrage charges.
KIRPAL, J. The companymon question involved in these appeals is whether the appellant Board of Trustees of the Port Trust companystituted under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 for short the MPT Act have a general lien for their dues over the present or future companysignments imported by the importers at the Bombay Port when the said dues are in respect of the past imports made by the said importers.
