9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad vessels. There is nothing on record to show that the rates had been revised in respect of the dead vessels, berthed at the Chennai Port Trust, by way of a notification issued by the Berth Authority for Major Ports. Therefore, the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant, with regard to the berth hire charges, in respect of the vessel MV “San Giorgio 1”, cannot be countenanced. However, it may be open to the appellant to make its claim, if any, for the payment of the additional hire charges, from the respondent, in respect of the vessel, by following the procedures contemplated under the provisions of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, before the appropriate authority or forum. Writ petition dismissed - Decided against the appellant. - Writ Appeal No. 247 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 23-12-2014 - M. Jaichandren and Aruna Jagadeesan, JJ. Shri P. Wilson, Senior Advocate for R. Karthikeyan, for the Appellant. Shri Fereshte D. Sethna for C. Kasirajan, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the appellant, as well as the respondent. 2. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2004, in its order dated 11-9-2004. 6. It had been further stated that it was an admitted fact that there is no scrapping yard at the Chennai port Trust and consequently, the berth hire charges were not made applicable for dead vessels meant for scrapping. The Chennai Port Trust had been following the berth hire charges prescribed and notified by the Vishakapattinam Port Trust, for dead vessels meant for scrapping. Therefore, it would not be open to the Chennai Port Trust to levy the hire charges, in respect of the vessel MV San Giorgio 1 , based on the rates applicable to commercial vessels. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge allowing the Writ Petition, in W.P. No. 18376 of 2010, the Chennai Port Trust has filed the present Writ Appeal before this Court raising a number of grounds. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had submitted that the learned single Judge had not considered the fact that MV San Giorgio 1 , is not a dead vessel. He had failed to consider the fact that the ship had been denied entry into the Tuticorin Port Trust and thereafter, it had reached the limits of the Chennai Port Trust. M/s. Olam International, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 3,91,428/- if it is classified to be a dead vessel. It would be a huge loss for the Chennai Port Trust, if this Court permits the respondent to pay only the charges payable in respect of the MV San Giorgio 1 , as a dead vessel. 9. In reply the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that there cannot be any dispute about the fact that the MV San Giorgio 1 is a dead vessel. In its long journey from the Port of West Africa, the vessel had become dead, as it could not sail on its own due to a fire accident. Thereafter, as the Tuticorin Port Trust refused to permit the berthing of the vehicle it had to be berthed at the Chennai Port Trust. As the vessel in question was a dead vessel the respondent had requested that the ship had to be towed and dismantled and cut and removed as a scrap. In fact the request made by the respondent for the cutting and scrapping of the vessel, at the Chennai Port Trust, had been refused, by the appellant. The delay in the towing of the vessel was beyond the control of the respondent. In fact a bank guarantee had also been given for about a sum of ₹ 1 crore, in favour of the appellant, at the time of the towin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 56 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. 11. It has been further stated that, when the payment of the rates, in respect of the vessel MV San Giorgio 1 , is seriously disputed, it would not open to this Court to decide the case by invoking its writ jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the matter needs to be decided based on evidence, both oral as well as documentary. The claim made by the appellant cannot be gone into by this Court, at this stage. In fact the appellant had not made such a claim at the earliest point of time and therefore, the claim would be hit by the doctrine of limitation. It has also been stated that, in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, in O.S.A. No. 108 of 2004 the issue relating to the payment of the berth hire charges, in respect of the dead vessel, is no longer res integra. Therefore, the present appeal filed by the appellant is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 12. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, we are of the considered view that the appellant has no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
