2021 (2) TMI 1308 - HC - Indian Laws

Commercial admiralty suit - bill of charges raised for port dues and anchorage charges against Respondent No.1 herein (original Applicant), who is an auction purchaser of the defendant vessel - Sections 48, 49 and 50 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 - HELD THAT - Under Section 50-B, when a vessel enters a port but does not discharge or take in any cargo or passengers, she is charged with port dues at a rate to be determined by the Authority, which, in any event, should not exceed half the rate with which she otherwise would be chargeable - Dealings between parties as also pleadings respectively filed by them also indicate the same understanding on the part of both stakeholders; both MbPT and Applicant have understood port dues and anchorage fees as separate charges governed by separate individual clauses of the Tariff notification. Pilotage charges - HELD THAT - The impugned order does not find any reference to pilotage charges. It is, however, submitted that the order provides for liberty reserved unto the Applicant to raise an issue concerning these charges in case an appeal is filed by MbPT challenging the impugned order. It is submitted that such liberty includes leave to file cross objection about pilotage charges. The liberty reserved for cross objection of the Applicant concerns the issue of charging of half anchorage fees under Section 50-B of the Act; there is no indication that any liberty was reserved on the issue concerning pilotage charges - there are no merit even in this aspect of the cross objection. The amount deposited by the Applicant as a condition of interim relief in its favour may now be withdrawn by MbPT. Such withdrawal, however, shall not be made for a period of four weeks from today - the commercial appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of anchorage charges in a commercial admiralty suit under Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 and Tariff Authority for Major Ports notification. Application of Section 8 of the Admiralty Act, 2017 in determining liability for anchorage charges post-sale of a vessel. Clarification on the nature of charges and encumbrances in relation to anchorage fees. Analysis of the liability to pay for services provided by the Board under the Major Port Trusts Act. Examination of the scope of port dues and anchorage charges under Section 50-B of the Major Port Trusts Act.

Issue 1: Interpretation of Anchorage Charges
The judgment concerns a commercial appeal challenging an order in a commercial admiralty suit regarding anchorage charges raised by the Port of Mumbai against an auction purchaser of a vessel. The dispute revolves around the applicable anchorage fees based on the duration of the vessel at a specific anchorage point, as per the Tariff Authority for Major Ports notification. The learned Single Judge ruled in favor of the rate applicable for up to 30 days, rejecting the claim for charges beyond 30 days.

Issue 2: Application of Admiralty Act
The Applicant argued that under Section 8 of the Admiralty Act, upon the sale of the vessel, it vested free from all encumbrances, including anchorage charges. However, the court dismissed this argument, stating that the charges for anchorage post-sale were not considered encumbrances but rather related to the vessel's condition, which the purchaser accepted under the "as is where is" basis.

Issue 3: Liability for Board's Services
Referring to a Supreme Court case, the judgment clarifies that users of services provided by the Board are liable to pay for such services at prescribed rates, irrespective of whether the services are optional. The purchaser of the vessel, even if not responsible for its prior docking, is obligated to pay for anchorage services as per the rates fixed by the Tariff authority.

Issue 4: Scope of Port Dues and Charges
The cross-objection raised by the Applicant focused on whether anchorage charges fall under the expression "port dues" as per Section 50-B of the Major Port Trusts Act. The court differentiated between port dues and anchorage fees, emphasizing that they are distinct charges governed by separate clauses of the Tariff notification. The judgment dismissed the cross-objection, stating that port dues and anchorage fees are recognized separately.

In conclusion, the commercial appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order related to rectification of anchorage charges. The judgment emphasized the distinction between charges, the liability for services provided by the Board, and the interpretation of relevant legal provisions governing port dues and anchorage fees.