Contractual lien and attachment principles limit retention of contractor equipment after termination and disputed damages claims.

A contractual lien cannot be extended beyond the scope and purpose for which it was created, and a port could not retain a contractor's machinery, equipment or material after termination where the agreement did not support such retention. The court further found no prima facie basis to treat the contractor as having abandoned the work for commercial reasons, as the record reflected disturbances and repeated requests for protection rather than a simple business walkaway. It also held that a disputed claim for unliquidated damages did not justify attachment before judgment or security, particularly where the goods were already subject to a prior charge and the balance of convenience did not support immobilising them.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Port had any contractual lien or right to retain the contractor's machinery, equipment and material after termination of the agreement; (ii) whether the contractor had abandoned the work for commercial reasons so as to justify the Port's claim for damages and retention of the goods; (iii) whether an order in the nature of attachment before judgment or security could be granted in the Port's favour.

Issue (i): Whether the Port had any contractual lien or right to retain the contractor's machinery, equipment and material after termination of the agreement.

Analysis: The agreement and its general conditions were read as a whole. Clause 4.19, which speaks of "constructional plant" and lien until satisfactory completion of the work, was held not to fit a contract for supply, operation and maintenance of cargo-handling equipment. The expression was understood in the setting of construction or civil work, and the agreement itself permitted removal of equipment on expiry or early termination. Once termination had been accepted and no further work survived, the stated purpose of the lien could no longer operate. The other clauses relied on by the Port did not confer any right to retain the equipment to secure a damages claim.

Conclusion: The Port had no enforceable lien or right to retain the contractor's machinery, equipment or material.

Issue (ii): Whether the contractor had abandoned the work for commercial reasons so as to justify the Port's claim for damages and retention of the goods.

Analysis: The correspondence and surrounding facts showed serious law and order disturbances, interference by vested interests, and repeated requests by the Port itself to civil and police authorities for protection and restoration of normalcy. In that setting, the inference that the contractor simply walked away for profit reasons was not accepted. The material did not establish a prima facie case that the contractor abandoned the project merely because the business became commercially unattractive.

Conclusion: The allegation of commercial abandonment was not established.

Issue (iii): Whether an order in the nature of attachment before judgment or security could be granted in the Port's favour.

Analysis: A claim for unliquidated damages does not ordinarily justify attachment or security unless the claim is of a near-unimpeachable character. The Port's claim was not of that quality. The existence of a prior bank charge over the contractor's movables also undermined the Port's position. On the material before the Court, the balance of convenience did not support keeping the machinery idle or subjecting it to distress sale merely to secure a contested damages claim.

Conclusion: No order for attachment before judgment or security was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The contractor was entitled to remove its machinery and equipment from the Haldia Dock Complex, and the Port could not obstruct such removal on the basis of the asserted lien or the pending damages claim.

Ratio Decidendi: A contractual lien can be enforced only within the scope and purpose for which it is created, and a disputed unliquidated damages claim does not by itself justify attachment or retention of the counterparty's movables, especially where the contract has been terminated and the goods are subject to a prior charge.

---