2020 (4) TMI 358

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....orted by the petitioner was lying in the Chennai Port premises. However, the respondent called upon the petitioner to pay demurrage charges for not removing the cargo from the Chennai Port premises within the prescribed period. It is the case of the petitioner that they filed writ petitions namely W.P. Nos.28110 & 28111 of 2010 before this Court challenging the demand made by the respondents towards Penal demurrage charges and by an order dated 27.03.2014, a learned Single Judge of this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions directed the petitioner to approach the respondents by way of a fresh representation pointing out the circumstances under which they were prevented from removing the cargo with documentary evidence and the respondents we....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2010 by affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner with regard to the levy of penal demurrage charges. He would further submit that by a non speaking order, the respondent has confirmed that the levy of penal demurrage charges on the petitioner is in order. 6. However, the learned standing counsel for the respondent would submit that only in accordance with the scale of rates fixed by the Chennai Port Trust, the penal demurrage charges have been claimed by the respondent. It is also his case that the notice sent to the petitioner with regard to the claim of the penal demurrage charges was returned with the endorsement "left". According to him, the address mentioned in the notice is the correct address of the petitioner as declare....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....alleged to have been sent by the respondent dated 09.06.2009, the address of the petitioner is mentioned as Shed No.835, 1st stage, 4th Cross, behind SP 51 & 52 Peenya Industrial Estate, Bangalore - 560 058. Even though it is the case of the respondent that the address was given only by the petitioner's agent, the said communication of the agent disclosing the petitioner's address has not been reflected in the impugned order dated 06.11.2014. By a single paragraph cryptic order, without any discussion with regard to the service of notice and with regard to the liability of the petitioner to pay penal demurrage charges, the impugned order has been passed by total non application of mind and has also been passed without adhering to th....