<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2008 (2) TMI 34 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3829</link>
    <description>Liability of a steamer agent as the &quot;owner&quot; of goods under the Major Port Trusts Act remained unresolved because the Court found the issue to be one of public importance and expressed doubt about the correctness of an earlier Three-Judge Bench view. The Court also treated liability for storage charges and demurrage on uncleared goods, including where no delivery order was issued, as requiring authoritative reconsideration. The interaction between the definition of &quot;owner&quot; in Section 2(o) and the Port Trust&#039;s obligations under Sections 61 and 62 was likewise reserved for fuller examination. The matter was directed to be placed before a larger Bench.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 04 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=43177" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (2) TMI 34 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3829</link>
      <description>Liability of a steamer agent as the &quot;owner&quot; of goods under the Major Port Trusts Act remained unresolved because the Court found the issue to be one of public importance and expressed doubt about the correctness of an earlier Three-Judge Bench view. The Court also treated liability for storage charges and demurrage on uncleared goods, including where no delivery order was issued, as requiring authoritative reconsideration. The interaction between the definition of &quot;owner&quot; in Section 2(o) and the Port Trust&#039;s obligations under Sections 61 and 62 was likewise reserved for fuller examination. The matter was directed to be placed before a larger Bench.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3829</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>