2008 (2) TMI 34

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....1972 being carried by a vessel S.S.  President Madison.   The goods remained uncleared for a period of over two months from the date of landing.  The Port Trust of Bombay (plaintiff) by a letter dated 10.10.1974 addressed to the appellant requested to furnish the name and address of the consignee.  As no reply was received from the appellant, by a further letter dated 12.10.1974, the plaintiff (respondent herein) served a notice of sale upon the appellant with a request to issue the same to the ultimate consignee by R.P.A.D. As no action was taken, the respondent by its notice dated 11.5.1975 informed the appellant that the goods were lying uncleared in the warehouse and if the same were not cleared within 10 days ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e the Trial Court and also produced relevant materials.  The Trial Court after perusing the documents and evidence on record and after hearing the parties dismissed the suit against defendant no.2.  The appeal filed by the plaintiff before the full Court of Court of Small Causes was allowed by the judgment and order dated 7.11.1989.  In the interregnum writ petition came to be filed.  A Special Leave Petition was filed before this Court and was remanded by this Court with which we are not concerned.   6. On the first blush since the amount towards the storage charges was only to the extent of Rs.4752/- we thought of dismissing the appeal with a question of law left open. 7. However, having regard to the q....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ik Mohamed Rowthar vs. The Trustees of Port of Madras, ILR (1975) Vol.1 Madras 59 held that the demurrage charges have to be collected by the Port Trust only from the consignee and not from the steamer agent.  After reading the aforesaid judgment, we doubted the correctness of the said judgment and we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment of this Court.   10. Per contra Mr. T.R. Andhyarujina, learned senior counsel, appearing for the respondent strenuously contended that the issues involved in the present case are squarely covered by the judgment rendered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of The Trustees of the Port of Madras by its Chairman vs. K.P.V. Shei....