Court denies waiver of charges for CFS during COVID lockdown - private contracts govern.

The court dismissed the petitioner's application for interim relief seeking waiver of penal charges, demurrage, and other fees during the COVID-19 lockdown. The court found that the advisories issued by the Ministry of Shipping and Director General of Shipping did not apply to Container Freight Stations (CFS) operating outside Major Ports. It emphasized that private contractual arrangements between CFS and their customers governed the relationship, and the advisories were not binding on CFS to waive charges. The court directed the respondents to file detailed counter-affidavits for further proceedings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the court.
2. Applicability of advisories and guidelines issued by the Ministry of Shipping and Director General of Shipping.
3. Private contractual arrangements between Container Freight Stations (CFS) and their customers.
4. Relief sought by the petitioner regarding waiver of penal charges, demurrage, and other fees during the COVID-19 lockdown.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Court:
The respondent argued that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the subject containers/materials were lying at ports outside the court's jurisdiction. The court noted that the issue of jurisdiction needed detailed examination and could not be decided at the interim stage.

2. Applicability of Advisories and Guidelines:
The petitioner relied on various advisories issued by the Ministry of Shipping and the Director General of Shipping to argue that no penal charges, demurrage, or detention charges should be levied during the lockdown. However, the court found that these advisories were applicable only to Major Ports and their concessionaires, not to CFS operating outside Major Ports. The court noted that the Ministry of Shipping and Director General of Shipping had issued guidelines to Major Ports for waiving such charges, but these did not extend to CFS operating from non-major ports like Mudra and Jam Nagar.

3. Private Contractual Arrangements:
The court emphasized that the relationship between the CFS and their customers is governed by private contracts. The Ministry of Shipping and Director General of Shipping do not have the authority to intervene or modify these private contractual terms. The court noted that the advisories issued were not mandatory and did not have statutory force to bind the CFS to waive charges.

4. Relief Sought by the Petitioner:
The petitioner sought a direction to waive penal charges, demurrage, and other fees during the lockdown. The court found that the petitioner failed to make a prima facie case for such relief. The court highlighted that the advisories were not binding on CFS and that the CFS had already provided some relief voluntarily. The court also noted that the petitioner could recover the charges paid if it was later determined that the advisories were binding.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petitioner's application for interim relief, stating that the petitioner had not established a prima facie case, and the balance of convenience did not lie in their favor. The court directed the respondents to file detailed counter-affidavits for further proceedings.

---