1993 (1) TMI 81 - HC - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the defendants were the importers or owners of the goods.
2. Whether the suit was barred by the law of limitation.
3. Whether the defendants were liable for wharfage and demurrage charges.
4. Interpretation of the term 'owner' under the Bombay Port Trusts Act and the Major Port Trusts Act.
5. Liability of the consignee or agent for the custody of goods.
6. Applicability of Supreme Court judgments on the liability of the consignee.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the defendants were the importers or owners of the goods:
The trial Judge concluded that the defendants were not the importers or owners of the goods. However, the appellate court found this conclusion erroneous. The term 'owner' under Section 3(5) of the Bombay Port Trusts Act and Section 2(o) of the Major Port Trusts Act includes any consignor, consignee, shipper, or agent for the sale or custody of such goods. The defendants were deemed to be the consignees or agents for the custody of the goods, thus falling within the definition of 'owner'. The endorsement on the bill of lading in favor of defendant No. 1 established them as the consignee, transferring all rights from the original consignee (Indian Overseas Bank) to the defendants.

2. Whether the suit was barred by the law of limitation:
The trial Judge held that the suit was not barred by the law of limitation. This finding was not specifically contested in the appeal, and the appellate court did not address this issue further, implicitly accepting the trial Judge's conclusion.

3. Whether the defendants were liable for wharfage and demurrage charges:
The appellate court held that the defendants, being the owners of the consignment under the statutory definition, were liable for the wharfage and demurrage charges. The defendants had incurred expenses and liabilities related to the consignment, and there was no evidence of reimbursement from M/s. Laxmi Engineering Company. The defendants' actions and financial commitments indicated their ownership and responsibility for the goods.

4. Interpretation of the term 'owner' under the Bombay Port Trusts Act and the Major Port Trusts Act:
The term 'owner' under both Acts includes any consignor, consignee, shipper, or agent for the sale or custody of such goods. The appellate court emphasized that this definition is inclusive and artificial, focusing on the role and responsibilities rather than the title to the goods. The endorsement on the bill of lading made defendant No. 1 the consignee, thus fitting the definition of 'owner' under the Acts.

5. Liability of the consignee or agent for the custody of goods:
Even if the defendants were not considered consignees, they could still be held liable as agents for the custody of the goods. The defendants had secured an endorsement on the bill of lading to obtain custody of the consignment, making them responsible for the charges. The appellate court found considerable merit in this contention, further supporting the defendants' liability.

6. Applicability of Supreme Court judgments on the liability of the consignee:
The defendants cited Supreme Court judgments to argue that the Port Trust authorities could only recover charges from the ship-owner or steamer-agent, not the consignee. However, the appellate court distinguished these cases, emphasizing that the Port Trust authorities render services to the goods and the owner, making the owner liable for charges. The court rejected the argument that the consignee's liability could be negated by pointing to the vessel or steamer-agent.

Conclusion:
The appellate court allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial Judge's judgment and decree. The defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiffs Rs. 1,58,345.10 with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the suit until realization, along with the costs of the suit and the appeal. The court affirmed the defendants' liability for the charges as owners of the consignment under the statutory definitions and general law principles.

← Previous Next →