9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to remission of demurrage charges during a strike period. 2. Whether the petitioners' delay in seeking relief disentitles them to relief in writ jurisdiction. 3. Whether the refusal of demurrage charges to the petitioners amounts to hostile discrimination. Analysis: Issue 1: The petitioners, a partnership firm engaged in supplying goods to foreign vessels and diplomats, imported goods during a strike period at the Port of Bombay. The petitioners sought remission of demurrage charges paid during the strike period, claiming they were prevented from clearing the goods due to the strike. The respondents, however, rejected the claim citing a policy decision to grant concession only to consignments cleared by striking clearing agents. The court found that the petitioners' delay in approaching the court, lack of urgency, and the fact that their staff was not on strike were factors against granting remission. The court held that the petitioners failed to show sufficient cause for remission, and the relief sought was denied. Issue 2: The respondents contended that the petitioners were not entitled to seek remission due to delays in seeking relief and lack of obstruction during the strike period. The court acknowledged the considerable delay by the petitioners in approaching the court for relief. Despite multiple rejections of their claim by the Port Trust authorities, the petitioners did not file the present petition until more than two years after the incident. The court held that the delay demonstrated a lack of urgency and diligence on the part of the petitioners, leading to a dismissal of their claim on the grounds of laches. Issue 3: The petitioners alleged hostile discrimination, claiming that other firms were granted waivers of demurrage charges during the same strike period. They argued that the refusal of remission to them violated Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. However, the court found merit in the respondents' argument that the circumstances of the other firms' cases differed significantly from that of the petitioners. The court noted that the other firms had protested and taken action before clearance of goods, unlike the petitioners. Ultimately, the court held that the petitioners' case did not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction, and their claim of hostile discrimination was dismissed. In conclusion, the court discharged the rule with no order as to costs, denying the petitioners' claim for remission of demurrage charges during the strike period. The judgment emphasized the importance of timely action, lack of obstruction during the strike, and the specific circumstances of the petitioners' case in rejecting their claims.
|
