Contractual port charges and lockdown advisories did not justify an injunction against demurrage and detention levies.

An interim restraint against levying demurrage, ground rent, detention charges and similar charges during the COVID-19 lockdown was refused because the petitioner showed no prima facie enforceable right to injunction. The Court found that the circulars, advisories and directions relied upon were addressed to Major Ports and related entities, and did not operate on the record as binding directions against the private CFS operators in issue. It also noted that the charge structure between the CFS operators and their customers was contractual, and that some concessions had already been extended voluntarily. Balance of convenience and irreparable loss were also not established, so interim interference was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to an interim restraint order directing the respondents to forbear from levying demurrage, ground rent, detention charges and similar charges during the lockdown period.

Analysis: The relief sought rested on circulars, advisories and directions issued by governmental authorities during the COVID-19 lockdown. The Court found that the materials relied upon were addressed to Major Ports and related entities, and did not, on the record before it, operate as binding directions upon the private CFS operators concerned in the petition. It also noted that the tariff and charge structure between the CFS operators and their customers was contractual in nature, and that the respondents had already extended some concessions on their own. On that basis, the Court held that no prima facie enforceable right had been shown for grant of an injunction. The Court further held that the balance of convenience did not favour the petitioner and that no irreparable loss was made out for interim interference.

Conclusion: The interim injunction was refused; the application for restraint order failed.

---