TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1128
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No. 18376 of 2010, the respondent in the present Writ appeal, had filed the Writ Petition praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for and quash the letter issued by the appellant herein, dated 18-6-2010, and consequently to direct the appellant to fix the berth charges at Rs. 1380.84 per day, with effect from 29-4-2010, in respect of the dead vessel MV "San Giorgio 1" and to adjust from and out of the amount of Rs. 16,32,300/- already paid by the present respondent and to refund the excess amount. 4. The main question that had arisen for the decision of this Court, at the stage of the Writ Petition, is as to whether, the Chennai Port Trust, the appellant herein, is entitled to levy berth hire charges a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsidered by this Court, in O.S.A. No. 108 of 2004, in its order dated 11-9-2004. 6. It had been further stated that it was an admitted fact that there is no scrapping yard at the Chennai port Trust and consequently, the berth hire charges were not made applicable for dead vessels meant for scrapping. The Chennai Port Trust had been following the berth hire charges prescribed and notified by the Vishakapattinam Port Trust, for dead vessels meant for scrapping. Therefore, it would not be open to the Chennai Port Trust to levy the hire charges, in respect of the vessel MV "San Giorgio 1", based on the rates applicable to commercial vessels. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge allowing the Writ Petition, in W.P. N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....annot be treated as a dead vessel. 8. It had been further submitted that the learned single Judge had failed to consider the fact that no materials had been placed on record by the respondent herein in support of its claim that the vessel in question was classified as a dead vessel. In the auction for the sale of the vessel by the Bombay High Court, it had been sold for Rs. 6 crores. Therefore, it cannot be considered to be a dead vessel. M/s. Olam International Limited had paid the vessel related charges only on a commercial rate and not at the Vishakapattinam Port Trust rate meant for scrap vessels. The learned single Judge had failed to consider the fact that the Bombay High Court had directed the owners of the vehicles to pay th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e request made by the respondent for the cutting and scrapping of the vessel, at the Chennai Port Trust, had been refused, by the appellant. The delay in the towing of the vessel was beyond the control of the respondent. In fact a bank guarantee had also been given for about a sum of Rs. 1 crore, in favour of the appellant, at the time of the towing of the vessel from the Chennai Port Trust. Even though the ship had been purchased by the respondent, on 29-4-2010, the vessel could be towed out of the Chennai Port Trust only on 21-3-2011, after obtaining appropriate orders from this Court, after the filing of a contempt petition. 10. It has been further stated that there cannot be any dispute with regard to the fact that MV "San Giorg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es prescribed in the provisions of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, especially, Section 56 of the said Act. In fact, the appellant ought to have issued a show cause notice for claiming the additional berth charges, in respect of the vessel MV "San Giorgio 1". Even if the vessel had been towed out of the Chennai Port Trust and if the arrest or distraint of the vessel cannot be made at the Chennai Port Trust, it would be open to the appellant to make its claim, by issuing a show cause notice, under Section 56 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. 11. It has been further stated that, when the payment of the rates, in respect of the vessel MV "San Giorgio 1", is seriously disputed, it would not open to this Court to decide the case by inv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he said claim made on behalf of the appellant that the vessel is not a dead vessel. As the appellant had not been in a position to show that the berth hire charges applicable to the vessel MV "San Giorgio 1" has been notified by the Berth Authority for Major Ports and made applicable in respect of the Chennai Port Trust, the claim of the appellant cannot be sustained. 13. From the records available it could be seen that the Chennai Port Trust has been adopting the rates fixed by the Vishakapattinam Port Trust, in respect of the dead vessels. There is nothing on record to show that the rates had been revised in respect of the dead vessels, berthed at the Chennai Port Trust, by way of a notification issued by the Berth Authority for M....