Case Note & Summary
The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay, a statutory corporation, filed a suit for recovery of Rs 3,21,369.45 along with interest, being the deficit in port charges after the sale of consignment. The dispute arose from the import of 89 reels of glazed newsprint in 1984. The first defendant was alleged to be the importer/consignee, and the second defendant was the agent of the vessel 'Vishva Apurva'. The plaintiffs claimed that defendants failed to clear the consignment, leading to accumulation of wharfage, demurrage, and other charges. The goods were sold in three lots under statutory provisions, but the sale proceeds were insufficient to cover the charges. Notices were issued under sections 61 and 62 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. The first defendant denied being the importer and raised limitation. The second defendant contended that its liability ended upon discharge and that it was not an 'owner' under the Act. The court framed nine issues, including maintainability, limitation, and liability. On the interpretation of 'owner' under section 2(o), the court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Trustees of The Port of Madras v. K.P.V. Sheikh Mohd. Rowther & Co., holding that an agent of the vessel is included within the definition and remains liable for port charges. The judgment excerpt ends before a final determination on all issues.
Headnote
A) Port Laws - Definition of 'Owner' - Liability of Vessel Agent - Section 2(o) Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 - The Court examined the submission that the agent of the vessel (Defendant No.2) ceased to be liable after discharge of goods. Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Trustees of The Port of Madras through its Chairman v. K.P.V. Sheikh Mohd. Rowther & Co., it was held that the definition of 'owner' in section 2(o) includes any agent for the sale, custody, loading or unloading of goods, and thus the vessel agent is liable for port charges. (Paras 15-17)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the agent of a vessel is liable as an 'owner' for port charges under section 2(o) of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963; whether the suit is maintainable and within limitation; whether defendants are liable for deficit after sale of consignment.
Final Decision
Decision not clearly stated
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Agent of vessel falls within inclusive definition of 'owner' under section 2(o) of Major Port Trusts Act
- 1963 and is liable for port charges even after discharge of goods
- liability for deficit after sale of consignment
- port can recover charges by sale of goods under sections 61 and 62
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (03) 101
Citation not available, 2010 BHC-OS 3219
Mr. U.J. Makhija with Ms. Preeti Shah for plaintiffs, Mr. Vinayak Shete for Defendant No.1, Ms. N. Sumnani for Defendant No.2
The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay
M/s Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. and Shipping Corporation of India Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Suit for recovery of deficit port charges after sale of consignment
Remedy Sought
Plaintiffs seek recovery of Rs 3,21,369.45 with interest at 15% per annum from date of suit till realization
Filing Reason
Defendants imported goods and failed to clear them, resulting in port charges; after sale of goods under statutory provisions, a deficit remained unpaid
Previous Decisions
Previous decisions not referenced
Issues
Whether the suit is misconceived and not maintainable as alleged in para (1) of the written statement of defendant No.1?
Whether the plaintiffs’ claim in suit is barred by law of limitation as alleged in para (5) and para (2) of the written statements of both defendant No.1 and 2 respectively?
Whether the plaintiffs prove that defendant No.1 are the importer and/or owners and/or consignees of the suit consignment within the meaning of section 2(o) of the Major Port Trusts Act as stated in paras (2) and (5) of the plaint?
Whether the plaintiffs prove that defendant No.2 were the bailors/owners of the said consignment as stated in para (5) of the plaint?
Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants were bound and liable to take delivery of and clear the said consignment and that they failed to do so as stated in para (5) of the plaint?
Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants are liable to pay wharfage, demurrage and other charges which accrued thereon as stated in para (5) of the plaint?
Whether the sale of the consignment has resulted in a deficit of Rs. 3,20,447.62 as alleged in para (18) of the plaint?
Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled to the sum of Rs. 3,21,369.45 with interest @ 15% per annum on the sum of Rs.3,20,447.62 from the date of the suit till payment and/or realization and cost of the suit as stated by the plaintiffs in prayer (a) of the plaint?
To what relief, if any, the plaintiffs entitled to as against the defendants?
Submissions/Arguments
Plaintiffs argued that defendant No.2 as agent of vessel is an 'owner' under section 2(o) and liable for port charges
Plaintiffs relied on Supreme Court judgment in Trustees of The Port of Madras v. K.P.V. Sheikh Mohd. Rowther & Co.
Defendant No.1 denied being importer/owner/consignee and contended that the suit is barred by limitation
Defendant No.2 contended that its liability ceased upon discharge of goods and that it is not a bailor/owner under the Act; also claimed suit barred by limitation and that demurrage beyond four months is not recoverable under section 63
Ratio Decidendi
The definition of 'owner' under section 2(o) of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 includes the agent of the vessel, and such agent remains liable for port charges even after discharge of goods. The Supreme Court's interpretation in Trustees of The Port of Madras v. K.P.V. Sheikh Mohd. Rowther & Co. is binding.
Judgment Excerpts
Section 2(o) defines the term owner. The said section 2(o reads as under:- “(o) “owner”, (i) in relation to goods, includes any consignor, consignee, shipper or agent for the sale, custody, loading or unloading of such goods; and (ii) in relation to any vessel or any aircraft making use of any port, includes any part-owner, charterer, consignee, or mortgagee in possession thereof,”
The ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Trustees of The Port of Madras through its Chairman (supra) would squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The Apex Court, in the said case, after referring to definition of the terms “owner” in section 2(o), has clearly held that the agent of the vessel shall be treated as an owner and as long as deliver order is not handed ov
Procedural History
Suit filed in 1990; defendants filed written statements raising maintainability, limitation, and denial of liability. Issues framed on 06/12/2007. Plaintiffs examined two witnesses; defendants did not lead evidence. Judgment delivered on 05/03/2010.
Acts & Sections
- Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 (as amended by Major Port Trusts Amendment Act, 1974): 2(o), 61, 62, 63
- Companies Act, 1956:
