Port trust sale power and demurrage cutoff for uncleared cargo upheld, with charges limited to writ filing date

The Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 was held to require the Port Trust to act under Section 62 for disposal of uncleared containerised cargo; the fact that the goods were inside containers did not prevent the statutory sale power from operating, and bye-laws could not override that mandate. The Court also held that Indo-Nepal transit arrangements did not bar action under Indian law. On demurrage, charges could be levied only up to the date the writ petition was filed, and earlier debits had to be recalculated with sale expenses paid first from sale proceeds, any balance adjusted against demurrage, and surplus kept deposited.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Port Trust was obliged to take action under Section 62 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 for disposal of uncleared containerised cargo and could not remain passive merely because the goods were in containers; (ii) Whether demurrage charges could be levied beyond the date on which the writ petition was filed and whether the appellant was entitled to refund or waiver of the charges already debited.

Issue (i): Whether the Port Trust was obliged to take action under Section 62 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 for disposal of uncleared containerised cargo and could not remain passive merely because the goods were in containers.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Sections 59, 61 and 62 confers a lien on the Board over goods in its custody and empowers it to sell goods not removed within the prescribed time. The Court held that the fact that the cargo remained inside containers did not prevent the operation of the provision. Bye-law 55C could not override the statutory power and could only regulate the Board's responsibility as bailee, not its power or duty to act for sale. The Court also held that the Indo-Nepal transit arrangements did not bar action under Indian law.

Conclusion: The Port Trust was required to take steps under Section 62 and could not lawfully remain silent.

Issue (ii): Whether demurrage charges could be levied beyond the date on which the writ petition was filed and whether the appellant was entitled to refund or waiver of the charges already debited.

Analysis: Since the goods were allowed to remain in the port premises and the writ petition was filed on 23 July 1997, the Court held that demurrage could run only up to that date. The charges already debited were therefore liable to be recalculated accordingly, with the sale expenses to be paid first out of the sale proceeds and any balance to be adjusted against demurrage. Any surplus was directed to be kept deposited.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to a full waiver of demurrage and remained liable up to 23 July 1997 only.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of fixing the method and cutoff for demurrage calculation, but the substantive fiscal liability was upheld in favour of the Port Trust, with the appellant entitled only to adjustment of sale proceeds and expenses in the manner directed.

Ratio Decidendi: The statutory power under Section 62 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 cannot be treated as a licence for inaction where goods remain uncleared in port premises, and demurrage may be recovered until the date the owner or carrier invoked judicial intervention, subject to adjustment of sale proceeds and necessary expenses.

---