2015 (9) TMI 1128 - HC - Indian Laws

Vessel was berthed at the Chennai Port Trust - whether, the Chennai Port Trust, the appellant herein, is entitled to levy berth hire charges as applicable to commercial vehicles or the charges leviable in the case of dead vessel meant for scrapping - Held that - the appellant has not been in a position to show, by sufficient evidence, that the vessel in question, namely, MV San Giorgio 1 , is not a dead vessel. Further, the amount payable in respect of the vessel MV San Giorgio 1 cannot be based on the rates applicable to commercial vehicles. The fact the vessel in question is a dead vessel cannot be questioned. 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. 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 Major Ports. Therefore, the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant, with regard to the berth hire charges, in respect of the vessel MV San Giorgio 1 , cannot be countenanced. However, it may be open to the appellant to make its claim, if any, for the payment of the additional hire charges, from the respondent, in respect of the vessel, by following the procedures contemplated under the provisions of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, before the appropriate authority or forum. Writ petition dismissed - Decided against the appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of berth hire charges for dead vessels meant for scrapping.
2. Applicability of berth hire charges for commercial vessels.
3. Dispute over classification of a vessel as a dead vessel.
4. Compliance with procedures under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963.

Interpretation of Berth Hire Charges for Dead Vessels:
The Writ Appeal challenged an order regarding the levy of berth hire charges for a dead vessel, MV "San Giorgio 1". The appellant, Chennai Port Trust, argued for charges applicable to commercial vessels, while the respondent sought rates for dead vessels meant for scrapping. The Court considered past decisions and noted that Chennai Port Trust followed rates set by Vishakapattinam Port Trust for dead vessels. The appellant's claim for higher charges was dismissed as no evidence showed revised rates for dead vessels at Chennai Port Trust.

Applicability of Berth Hire Charges for Commercial Vessels:
The appellant contended that MV "San Giorgio 1" was not a dead vessel due to insurance and commercial activities. However, the respondent maintained the vessel's classification as dead, citing a fire accident and towing for scrapping. The Court emphasized adherence to rates for dead vessels and dismissed the appellant's demand for increased charges, highlighting the lack of evidence supporting commercial rates for the vessel.

Dispute Over Vessel Classification:
The respondent argued that MV "San Giorgio 1" was a dead vessel, supported by the vessel's condition and past actions for scrapping. The appellant disputed this classification, citing the vessel's sale value and commercial activities. The Court upheld the vessel's dead status based on available evidence and past decisions, rejecting the appellant's claims against the vessel's classification.

Compliance with Major Port Trusts Act, 1963:
The Court emphasized adherence to procedures under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, for claiming additional berth hire charges. The appellant's demand for extra charges without following due process was deemed unreasonable. The Court directed the appellant to follow proper procedures for any future claims, ensuring compliance with legal provisions. The Writ Appeal was dismissed, confirming the earlier order, and highlighting the need for adherence to legal procedures in such matters.

This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues involved comprehensively, highlighting the legal interpretations, factual disputes, and procedural requirements addressed by the Court in the case.