9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the collection of demurrage is legal. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a refund of demurrage charges. 3. Relief sought by the plaintiffs. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of Demurrage Collection: The plaintiffs, partners in Nithiya Kalyani Timbers, imported 352 logs of wood from Andamans, which were unloaded at Madras Port on 1-7-1979. The Port authorities allowed three free days for removal of the consignment, which they could not do due to a strike by trailer workmen. Consequently, the Port authorities levied demurrage charges from 5-7-1979 to 25-7-1979, totaling Rs. 93,967.33. The plaintiffs argued that the levy was unilateral and they were not at fault for the delay in removing the cargo. They contended that Section 48 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, under which the charges were levied, was not applicable as no services were rendered by the Port Trust. They suggested that if any charges were to be levied, it should be under Section 49 for the rental of the area occupied. The court examined the rules framed under Sections 48, 49, and 50 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, which were published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. It was noted that demurrage is chargeable on goods left in the Board's transit sheds or yards beyond the expiry of the free days. The court referenced the Supreme Court ruling in Trustees, Port of Madras v. Aminchand Pyarelal, which clarified that demurrage is a charge and not a service fee, and it can be levied even without rendering specific services. 2. Entitlement to Refund of Demurrage Charges: The plaintiffs sought a refund of the demurrage charges, arguing that the delay was due to the strike by trailer workmen, who were not employees of the Port Trust. The court noted that the consignment was covered by an overside delivery order, meaning it had to be directly transferred from the ship to the consignee's vehicles. The court found no evidence that the plaintiffs attempted to clear the logs during the strike or that they were obstructed by the striking workers. The court also referenced the Supreme Court ruling in Port of Bombay v. I.G. Supplying Co., which held that even if the delay was not due to the negligence of the importer, they could not avoid paying demurrage as it is a charge levied under the authority of law. 3. Relief: The court concluded that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a refund of the demurrage charges. It upheld the decision of the Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, which dismissed the suit and confirmed the legality of the demurrage charges. The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the judgment and decree delivered by the Additional Judge. In summary, the court found that the collection of demurrage charges was legal and the plaintiffs were not entitled to a refund. The charges were validly imposed under the rules framed by the Port Trust, and the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence of any attempt to clear the logs during the strike. The appeal was dismissed, and the original judgment was upheld.
|
