2009 (3) TMI 604 - HC - Customs

Seizure - right of lien over goods - of third parties with whom there was no privity of contract - premise owned by the Kolkata Port Trust, for rent due to the Kolkata Port Trust, from its lessees writ application to a Larger Bench for a conclusive determination of the issue of whether Section 59 of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963 - confers on Kolkata Port Trust, a right of lien on goods of third parties, irrespective of whether the rent accrued in respect of those goods and irrespective of whether the owner of those goods had any privity of contract

Issues Involved:
1. Right of lien over third-party goods under Section 59 of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963, and Section 6 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
2. Whether the Kolkata Port Trust can detain or sell goods of third parties to recover rent from lessees/tenants.
3. Alternative remedy available under the 1971 Act.
4. Divergence in judicial interpretation of Section 59 of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Right of Lien Over Third-Party Goods:
The core issue is whether Kolkata Port Trust (KoPT) has the right of lien over goods belonging to third parties, stored at premises owned by KoPT, to recover rent due from its lessees or tenants. The petitioners, engaged in import and export, stored their goods in a warehouse managed by Sea Rock Commerce Ltd. (Sea Rock) on premises leased to Warren Industrial (Respondent Warren) by KoPT. Respondent Warren was evicted for unauthorized occupation, and KoPT detained the goods stored in the warehouse. The petitioners argued that their goods should not be detained as they had no privity of contract with KoPT.

2. Detention and Sale of Third-Party Goods:
KoPT initiated eviction proceedings against Respondent Warren under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. An order dated 6th February 2007 directed eviction, and on 11th March 2007, KoPT took possession and sealed the premises, preventing the removal of goods. The petitioners contended that their goods, stored upon payment of requisite charges, should not be detained to recover rent due from Respondent Warren. The legal question was whether KoPT could detain or sell the petitioners' goods to realize rent due from Respondent Warren.

3. Alternative Remedy Under the 1971 Act:
KoPT argued that the petitioners had an alternative remedy under the 1971 Act. However, the petitioners and Respondent Sea Rock were not parties to the proceedings before the land manager. The court noted that without an order from the Estate Officer directing the detention of the petitioners' goods, it was uncertain whether their application for release of goods would be entertained. The court emphasized that the question of alternative remedy arises only when there is a definite remedy, not an uncertain one.

4. Divergence in Judicial Interpretation:
The court highlighted the divergence in judicial interpretation of Section 59 of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963. In Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata v. Indian Rayon Corporation Ltd., it was held that KoPT's lien could only be on goods for which rent was due, not on goods belonging to third parties. Similarly, in Board of Trustees for the Port of Bombay v. M/s. Sriyanesh Knitters, the Supreme Court held that the lien under Section 59 was specific to goods for which rent was due. Conversely, in Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata v. Canoro Resources Ltd., a Division Bench held that KoPT had a lien over any goods found on its land, irrespective of ownership, to recover rent due.

Conclusion:
The court recognized the conflicting judgments and deemed it appropriate to refer the matter to a larger bench for a conclusive determination. The key issue was whether Section 59 of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963, read with Sections 5 and 6 of the 1971 Act, conferred on KoPT a right of lien on or the right to detain, seize, or sell goods of third parties lying on public premises to realize arrears of rent due from tenants, irrespective of whether the rent accrued in respect of those goods and irrespective of the owner's privity of contract with KoPT. The court requested the Hon'ble Chief Justice to consider referring this writ application to a larger bench for resolution.

← Previous Next →