<?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>1988 (1) TMI 364 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296715</link>
    <description>The amended scale of rates for anchorage dues was valid because it had been duly submitted, sanctioned and published, and anchorage charges were treated as a permissible service charge for providing harbour space. The port trust&#039;s statutory power to arrest and detain the vessel remained effective until payment, and its harbour lien was not extinguished merely by surrender of the vessel to the Sheriff. A statutory lien of this kind could not be displaced by court order without the authority&#039;s express or implied consent. The sale proceeds were therefore available in priority to satisfy the port trust&#039;s anchorage dues, and the competing claim for priority was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2021 14:34:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=651586" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (1) TMI 364 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296715</link>
      <description>The amended scale of rates for anchorage dues was valid because it had been duly submitted, sanctioned and published, and anchorage charges were treated as a permissible service charge for providing harbour space. The port trust&#039;s statutory power to arrest and detain the vessel remained effective until payment, and its harbour lien was not extinguished merely by surrender of the vessel to the Sheriff. A statutory lien of this kind could not be displaced by court order without the authority&#039;s express or implied consent. The sale proceeds were therefore available in priority to satisfy the port trust&#039;s anchorage dues, and the competing claim for priority was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296715</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>