Wharfinger's general lien includes demurrage and related port charges, and a specific statutory lien does not displace Section 171.

A statutory lien under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 was confined to the specific goods in respect of which charges were due and did not extend to later consignments for earlier liabilities. The Act did not exclude Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, so the Port Trust could rely on the wharfinger's general lien where the special Act was silent. The expression "general balance of account" was held to include lawful charges arising from wharfinger services, including demurrage and related port dues. On that basis, the Port Trust could retain the goods as security for recovery of those charges.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the lien created by the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 was limited to specific goods in respect of which rates were due or extended to a general lien over later consignments for past dues. (ii) Whether Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 applied to the Port Trust as a wharfinger despite the scheme of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. (iii) Whether demurrage and other port charges formed part of the "general balance of account" for which a wharfinger could retain goods under Section 171.

Issue (i): Whether the lien created by the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 was limited to specific goods in respect of which rates were due or extended to a general lien over later consignments for past dues.

Analysis: Sections 59 and 61 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 confer a lien only on the very goods in respect of which rates or rent are due and authorize seizure, detention and sale of those goods alone. The statutory language does not extend that lien to unrelated later consignments for earlier liabilities. The Act therefore provides a specific lien and not a general lien for past dues.

Conclusion: The lien under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 was limited to specific goods and did not create a general lien over subsequent consignments.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 applied to the Port Trust as a wharfinger despite the scheme of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963.

Analysis: The Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 is not an exhaustive code that excludes the operation of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 wherever the special Act is silent. The Act itself shows that, where Parliament intended exclusion or departure, it did so expressly. Since the special Act did not provide for a general lien of the kind claimed for past dues, recourse to Section 171 was permissible.

Conclusion: Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 applied and was not excluded by the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963.

Issue (iii): Whether demurrage and other port charges formed part of the "general balance of account" for which a wharfinger could retain goods under Section 171.

Analysis: The Port Trust performed the services of a wharfinger and also took charge of goods for landing, storing and delivering them. Section 171 permits retention of bailed goods for a general balance of account due to a wharfinger. That expression was held to cover the lawful charges arising from the wharfinger's services, and not merely wharfage in a narrow sense. Demurrage and connected charges were part of the balance due for those services.

Conclusion: Demurrage and related charges formed part of the general balance of account, and the Port Trust could retain the goods as security for their recovery.

Final Conclusion: The Port Trust was entitled to retain the imported goods as security for recovery of past wharfage, demurrage and other dues, and the writ petitions challenging the circular failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory lien confined to the very goods in respect of which charges are due does not exclude a wharfinger's general lien under Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and the expression "general balance of account" includes lawful charges arising from the wharfinger's services.

---