2021 (2) TMI 371 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking waiver of Ground Rent and port charges - Delay in Removal of goods from the Port premises within 30 days of their arrival - it is the submission of the Port that the last bills raised on the writ petitioners indicated that a sum in excess of ₹ 45 lakh was due on account of ground-rent and the like - HELD THAT - There is no doubt that the goods must be taken away from the Port premises so that the Port s land is unblocked. Equally, the writ petitioners cannot be allowed to remove the goods unconditionally and the Port be left to chase the writ petitioners for the Port s dues. There is a statutory lien which may be exercised by the Port and, to the extent that the Port s dues remain unpaid, the goods are liable to be detained. However, a balance has to be struck, particularly considering that the initial situation was brought about for reasons beyond the control of the writ petitioners. The Port may also not have been liable for the delay; but the lockdown made the delay inevitable. At the time of final adjudication, the writ court will go into the question as to whether the writ petitioners were entitled to a complete or partial waiver of ground-rent and what would be the exact quantum of the Port s claim. In the event the writ court concludes that the Port s claim of ₹ 45 lakh was exaggerated, the Port will be required to pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the balance quantum of the deposit from the date of such bills being raised till the balance quantum of the deposit is taken back by the writ petitioners. The Port s further charges will come out first from the deposit made. In the event the Port s charges are ultimately discovered to be in excess of the quantum of deposit, the writ petitioners will be liable to make good the same. For such purpose, an unconditional letter of undertaking should be issued by the first writ petitioner duly signed by the principal person in control thereof and made over to Advocate for the Port within a week from today. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Writ petitioners' claim for waiver of rent due to pandemic-related lockdown.
2. Dispute over Port authorities' charges and writ petitioners' removal of goods.
3. Determining the deposit amount and conditions for removal of goods.
4. Adjudication on the Port's claim and interest on exaggerated charges.
5. Conditions for the writ petitioners' liability and undertaking.
6. Open points for final hearing and Port's right to appropriate deposit.

Analysis:

1. The writ petitioners imported goods but faced challenges due to the lockdown, leading to a delay in removing the material from the Port premises. They claimed entitlement to a rent waiver based on a circular from the Ministry of Shipping.

2. Despite being able to remove the goods in June 2020, the writ petitioners were met with resistance from the Port authorities demanding full payment of charges before allowing removal.

3. The court directed the writ petitioners to deposit ?50 lakh in a nationalized bank, free from any lien, to remove the goods within 30 days. The fixed deposit receipt would be held by the Advocate for the Port without encumbrance.

4. The court reserved the final adjudication to determine the exact quantum of the Port's claim, with interest to be paid if the claim was found to be exaggerated. The writ court would assess the Port's charges and the writ petitioners' liability accordingly.

5. The writ petitioners were required to issue an unconditional undertaking for any excess charges, but removal of goods was not contingent upon this undertaking, only on the deposit and receipt handover.

6. The judgment left several aspects open for consideration at the final hearing, emphasizing that the order was without prejudice to the Port's rights. The Port was granted the right to seek appropriation of up to 75% of the deposit, subject to the final order on the writ petition.