9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ative. Point No. 2 is answered in the affirmative and the plaintiffs will be entitled to recover monies as per the final order. So far as Point No. 3 is concerned, I hold that the plaintiffs would be able to recover interest at the rate of ₹ 12% per annum as per the final order. So far as the point No. 4 is concerned, plaintiffs would be entitled to decree as per the operative part. . Thus Defendants do pay to plaintiffs ₹ 103352. 42p. Defendants do pay to plaintiffs interest at the rate of 12% per annum on ₹ 103352. 42p from 31-10-1987 till realization.Defendants do pay to plaintiffs costs of this suit. - Suit No. 2013 of 1988 - - - Dated:- 27-1-2011 - R.Y. Ganoo, J. Shri U.J. Makhija i/b. Mulla Mulla, for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the defendants were liable to pay the port trust charges. 5. According to the plaintiffs, by Order bearing No. S/16DEEC-444/84, dated 7-3-1986, Deputy Collector of Customs ordered confiscation of the goods described above under the provisions of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The consignment was confiscated to the Government. Be that as it may, the defendants did not pay the port trust charges. Hence plaintiffs by their notice dated 31-10-1987, Exhibit P-1, called upon the defendants to pay to plaintiffs the port trust charges amounting to Rs. 1,03,521. 82p. Plaintiffs also claimed interest at the rate of 15% per annum. 6. As Defendants did not pay the said charges, the plaintiffs, by their reminder dated 2-12-1987 called ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel Mr. Makhija on the question of institution of suit within the period of limitation. Taking into consideration last free date as 18-1-1985 and the date of filing the suit as 11-1-1988 and accepting the contention that the cause of action arose on 18-1-1985 the suit is filed within the period of limitation. Accordingly, point No. 1 is answered in the affirmative. 10. The plaintiffs have examined Mr. Sunil M. Deshmukh. Senior Assistant Traffic Manager of the plaintiffs as their witness and plaintiffs have placed before the court various documents in support of their claim. The plaintiffs have relied upon the documents, namely (i) Demand Notice dated 31-10-1987 is at Exhibit P-1, (ii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the various documents relied upon by the plaintiffs and the uncontroverted evidence of P.W. I Deshmukh, the claim of the plaintiffs to the extent of wharfage and demurrage is required to be granted. Taking into consideration the necessary figures stated in the working sheet, plaintiffs will be entitled to recover from the defendants the sum of Rs. 1,03,352.42. 13. Plaintiffs have demanded interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of first demand notice i.e. 31-10-1987. So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the plaintiffs have not been able to show any specific provision of law by which they could recover interest at the rate of 15% per annum. They have also not been able to show any agreement between the parties by whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
