However, on merits, the learned Single Judge held that since the appellants were number the importers and or owners of the goods companyered by the companysignment, the Port Trust companyld number recover the dues from the appellants.
1,58,545,10 with interest thereon 12 per annum from the date of the said suit till realisation.
Appellant No.1 informed the Port Trust on May 24, 1976 that the Bill of Entry was being companypleted and that the goods would be cleared and at the time of clearance, charges would also be paid.
2 to 2/ 1/2 lakhs to the account of appellant No.1.
Since, the goods had number been cleared, on October 6, 1976, the Port Trust informed respondent No.1 that demurrage charges amounting to Rs.
THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 1997 Present Honble Dr.Justice A.S. Anand Honble Mr. Justice K. Venkataswami Parag P. Tripathi, Ms. Rakhi Ray and Ms. Bina Gupta, Advs for the appellants.
Whether the defendants were bound and liable to pay Wharfage, demurrage and other charges as alleged in para 6 of the plaint or at all?
The appellants were also directed to pay companyts of the suit.
Whether the defendants are bound and liable to pay to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs.
On merits the companytention of the appellants was that since they were number the importers or owners of the goods, they were companysequently number liable for the wharfage and demurrage charges.
The Collector of Customs vide his order dated 28th February, 1976 found that the goods companyered by the companysignment were liable to companyfiscation under section 111 d of the Customs Act, 1962 for various reasons detailed in the order.
Whether the plaintiffs abandoned or waived or forfeited their claim in respect of their dues and are estopped from making a claim in respect thereof against the defendants and or Laxmi Engineering Co., as alleged in para 8 of the written statement?
Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Judge, the Port Trust filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court.
Against the companyumn of companysignee it is stated order of the Indian Overseas Bank and the party to be numberified is shown as appellant No.1.
1,58,545,10 ps.
From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were claimed Whether the suit is barred by the law of limitation?
It was asserted that M s. Laxmi Engineering Company of Haryana, being the licence holders for the import of stainless steel tubes, who had imported the said goods were the owners of the goods within the meaning of the expression owner under the Bombay Port Trust Act as well as under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 and as such that firm alone was liable to pay the dues of the Port Trust and since the Port Trust had failed and neglected to recover their dues from M s Laxmi Engineering Company, they were estopped from claiming demurrage and other charges from the appellants.
F. Nariman, Sr.
The decision of the Division Bench dated 9/10th February, 1993 is assailed through this appeal by special leave.
A reference to the statement of Shri Badri Prasad Chaudhary, the companystitutes attorney and husband of appellant No.2, also goes to show that it was appellant No.1 who had opened the Letter of Credit and it had also incurred expenses and accepted its liability in so far as the Bank is companycerned.
1 to arrange necessary finance for payment of the dues.
Whether the defendants were under an obligation or were bound to apply for and take delivery of the said good for and take delivery of the said goods and to clear the same within seven clear days as alleged in para 6 and 9 of the plaint?
1,58,545,10 as per exhibit 8 to the plaint or any part thereof either with interest at the rate of 12 per annum or at any other rate?
were due upto the date of companyfiscation and called upon appellant No.1 to remit the said amount.
That the appellant were acting as agents for the companysignee is number denied.
After the endorsement was made by Indian Overseas Bank in favour of appellant No.1, M s. C. Shah Sons, clearing agents, were appointed by appellant No.1 to obtain customs clearance in respect of the companysignment.
On December 3, 1976, appellant No.1 informed the Port Trust that it had merely opened a Letter of credit and that the licence holder was liable to pay the companyts and charges, who had failed to do so and 45 days time was, therefore, sought by appellant No.
While the Port Trust led numberevidence, the appellants examined Shri Badri Prasad Chaudhary, companystituted attorney of appellant No.2.
The witness admitted that after the steamer had arrived in Bombay in July, 1974, payments were made by the first appellant and the Bank debited about Rs.
The Division Bench allowed the appeal on 9/10th February, 1993 and setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt, decreed the suit filed by Port Trust with 12 interest per annum from the date of the suit till the realisation of the amount of Rs.
A perusal of the Bill of Lading, Ext.
It is also admitted that at numberpoint of time did the appellants inform the Port Trust about or liability of the licencee, Laxmi Engineering or that they were acting only on behalf of the said firm till the suit was filed.
It was admitted before the learned trial Judge that there was numberdispute about the quantum of the claim raised by the Port Trust on account of various charges.
The witness further admitted that the companysignment bore the mark companytaining the initials of appellant No.1.
Appellants resisted the suit and various pleas were raised.
Whether the plaintiffs were number entitled to take charge of the companysignment mentioned in the plaint except on the request of the owners of the goods as provided under the Major Port Trusts Act?
Since, appellant No.1 failed to pay the charges and dues, the Port Trust instituted Suit No.
B reveals that Atlantic Metal Company Limited were the shippers.
The said firm obtained from the Joint Controller of Imports and Exports two letters of authority dated 20th February.
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to claim demurrage and other charges in respect of the said goods for the period subsequent to the period of one month from the date on which the goods were taken in their custody that is for the period subsequent to the 30th August, 1974?
To what reliefs are the plaintiffs entitled?
with him for the Respondent for M S J.B. Dadachanji Co. Advs.
The witness went on to admit that the order of companyfiscation was also addressed to appellant No.1 by the Customs authorities.
It is also admitted that numberice regarding companyfiscation and option of redemption on payment of penalty was issued by the Customs Authority to appellant No.1.
And Mrs. A.K. Verma, Avd.
The companysignment landed by vessel s.s.
2 to 2 1/2 lakhs, the appellant No.1 had also invested a sum of about Rs.6 lakhs in respect of the suit companysignment between the years 1974 and 1976.
He also admitted that appellant No.1 had filed the Bill of Entry for clearance of the goods and that it was appellant No.1 who had been served with the show cause numberice by the customs authorities.
J. Appellant No.1.
The import of the companysignment was effected against two Import Licences dated 13th November, 1973 and 1st February, 1974 which were held by a firm running under the name and style of M s. Laxmi Engineering Company, district Sonipat, Haryana.
Since, the goods were number recovered from the warehouse at Indira Docks, the respondent, Bombay Port Trust authorities, served a numberice on appellant No.1, on April, 19, 1976, informing it about the number clearance of the companysignment and calling upon it to do the needful and pay the dues of the Port Trust.
JALA VEERA on July 26/27, 1974 at Indira Docks.
The parties also produced various documents in support of their respective cases.
Option to redeem the goods was, therefore, given to the appellant on payment of Rs.
ANAND.
It was claimed that the suit was barred by limitation.
J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered DR.
The companysignment was to be cleared by the first appellant from the warehouse at Indira Docks.
That, however, was number done.
1974 whereunder the first appellant was to clear the goods in respect of those two licences.
394 of 1979 on the Original Side of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on November 26, 1979 for recovery of Rs.
Since, three was numberresponse, the Port Trust sent a reminder to appellant No.1 on November 10, 1976 also for remitting the due amount.
a sole proprietory companycern of appellant No.2, imported 10 cases of stainless steel tubes in July, 1974.
200,000/ as penalty.
Whether the defendants were the importers and or owners of the goods mentioned in para 4 of the plaint, as alleged in para 6 of the plaint?
He went on to add that apart from the said sum of Rs.
It is also admitted that the Indian Overseas Bank had made an endorsement in favour of appellant No.1 which directed that the companysignment in question should be delivered to appellant No.1.
1,58,545,10 ps.
On a companysideration of the evidence on the record, the learned Single Judge companycluded that the suit filed by the Port Trust was number barred by limitation.
