Surplus sale proceeds claim accepted through authorised agent; limitation under ordinary proceedings did not bar writ relief.

A timely claim for surplus sale proceeds under Section 63(2) was treated as satisfied when the importer's banker, acting as authorised agent, requested release of the surplus within six months of the auction. The procedural requirement was not defeated by later receipt of formal documents, so the claim remained valid. The Court also treated Section 120 as a limitation rule for ordinary proceedings, not a bar to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, and declined to let a technical limitation objection defeat an otherwise maintainable claim. Relief was granted for release of the surplus amount with costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a request made by the importer's banker within six months of the auction constituted sufficient compliance with the requirement of Section 63(2) for claiming the surplus sale proceeds; and (ii) whether the existence of a limitation bar under Section 120 could justify refusal of relief in writ jurisdiction.

Issue (i): whether a request made by the importer's banker within six months of the auction constituted sufficient compliance with the requirement of Section 63(2) for claiming the surplus sale proceeds.

Analysis: The surplus under Section 63(2) was payable on an application by the importer, owner, consignee, or agent within six months from the date of sale. The banker's letter seeking release of the surplus in favour of the petitioner's account was treated as a claim made on the petitioner's behalf. The Court regarded the banker as acting as the petitioner's agent, and held that the statutory requirement was procedural in nature. Since the request was made within six months, the claim was not defeated by the fact that the formal receipt of documents occurred later.

Conclusion: Compliance with Section 63(2) was established, and the petitioner was entitled to the surplus sale proceeds.

Issue (ii): whether the existence of a limitation bar under Section 120 could justify refusal of relief in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: Section 120 was treated as relevant to ordinary suits or proceedings, but not as a bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The Court held that limitation does not control writ relief in the same manner as a civil action, and declined to allow a public authority to defeat a meritorious claim on a technical limitation objection.

Conclusion: The limitation objection under Section 120 did not preclude relief under Article 226.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner succeeded in obtaining a mandamus for payment of the surplus amount, and the Port Trust was directed to release the quantified surplus with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim for surplus sale proceeds under Section 63(2) is satisfied by a timely application made through the importer's authorised agent, and a statutory limitation applicable to suits does not by itself bar writ relief where the claim is otherwise legally maintainable.

---