Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Supreme Court: Port Trust's General Lien Valid</h1> <h3>BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF BOMBAY Versus SRIYANESH KNITTERS</h3> The Supreme Court held that the Port Trust does not have a general lien under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 or Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act. ... Whether the appellant - Board of Trustees of the Port Trust constituted under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 have a general lien for their dues over the present or future consignments imported by the importers at the Bombay Port when the said dues are in respect of the past imports made by the said importers? Held that:- There is no reason to give a restricted meaning to the expression “general balance of account” to mean only wharfage charges which, according to the respondents, would imply the charges for loading or unloading of goods, and would not include demurrage. Once goods are taken charge of by the appellants as a wharfingers then in respect of the services, rendered, as contemplated by Section 42, if there is any amount which is due and payable to it the same would be regarded as ‘general balance of account’ in respect of which it has a general lien over the goods bailed to it. Thus the circular dated 2nd October, 1979 issued by the appellants was valid and the appellants could retain the goods which were in their possession as bailees as security for realisation of the amount of wharfage, demurrage and other charges which were due to them. Appeal allowed of assessee. Issues Involved:1. General lien of the Port Trust under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 (MPT Act) and Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.2. Validity of the circular dated 2nd October 1979 issued by the Port Trust.3. Applicability of the MPT Act as a complete code.4. Relationship between the Port Trust and the consignee.5. Scope of 'general balance of account' under Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. General lien of the Port Trust under the MPT Act and Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act:The primary question was whether the Port Trust had a general lien for their dues over current or future consignments for past dues under the MPT Act or Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act. The Supreme Court held that Sections 59 and 61 of the MPT Act do not provide for a general lien but only a specific lien on goods for which dues are outstanding. The Court stated, 'Sections 59 and 61(1) give a lien on those goods in respect of which amount is claimed or due under Section 59.' Therefore, the MPT Act does not confer a general lien.2. Validity of the circular dated 2nd October 1979:The circular issued by the Port Trust stated they could exercise a general lien under Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act. The High Court had declared this circular ultra vires of the MPT Act. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the MPT Act does not exclude the applicability of Section 171 of the Contract Act. The Court concluded, 'The general lien of the type contemplated by Section 171 in respect of the past dues is not provided for by the MPT Act.' Thus, the circular was valid.3. Applicability of the MPT Act as a complete code:The respondents argued that the MPT Act was a complete code, excluding the applicability of other laws. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the MPT Act is not exhaustive and must be read together with other laws where it is silent. The Court observed, 'The MPT Act is not, in our opinion, an exhaustive and comprehensive code and the said Act has to be read together with other acts wherever the MPT Act is silent in respect of any matter.'4. Relationship between the Port Trust and the consignee:The High Court had held that the contract was between the ship owner and the Port Trust, not the consignee. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the consignee, as the holder of the bill of lading, is regarded as the owner of the goods under Section 2(o) of the MPT Act. The Court noted, 'The correct position is that the contract is between the Port Trust and the holder of the bill of lading, which, in this case, would be the consignee.'5. Scope of 'general balance of account' under Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act:The respondents contended that the general lien under Section 171 should be limited to wharfage charges only. The Supreme Court rejected this narrow interpretation, holding that the 'general balance of account' includes all charges due for services rendered by the Port Trust as wharfingers. The Court stated, 'Once goods are taken charge of by the appellants as wharfingers then in respect of the services, rendered, as contemplated by Section 42, if there is any amount which is due and payable to it the same would be regarded as 'general balance of account' in respect of which it has a general lien over the goods bailed to it.'Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment and upholding the validity of the circular dated 2nd October 1979. The Port Trust was entitled to exercise a general lien under Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act for past dues on current consignments. The writ petitions filed by the respondents were dismissed, and the appeals were allowed with costs throughout.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found