9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ]. - 1. This appeal is preferred by the second defendant in the suit. Brief Facts: 2. The appellant-defendant is a steamer agent of the vessel S.S.President Madison. The vessel was owned by a foreign company by the name American President Lines Ltd. One M/s Metal Fabs India Pvt. Ltd.(First Defendant) was a consignee of seven cartons of ball bearings which landed in the Port of Bombay on 5.2.1972 being carried by a vessel S.S. President Madison. The goods remained uncleared for a period of over two months from the date of landing. The Port Trust of Bombay (plaintiff) by a letter dated 10.10.1974 addressed to the appellant requested to furnish the name and address of the consignee. As no reply was received from the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore completing the sale. It was further claimed that the liability to meet the claim of the plaintiff was only upon the consignee, namely, defendant no.1.It was further the case that defendant no.2 was not the owner of the goods and, therefore, defendant no.2 was not liable to pay the deficit in the sale proceeds. 5. Both the parties led evidence before the Trial Court and also produced relevant materials. The Trial Court after perusing the documents and evidence on record and after hearing the parties dismissed the suit against defendant no.2. The appeal filed by the plaintiff before the full Court of Court of Small Causes was allowed by the judgment and order dated 7.11.1989. In the interregnum writ petition came to be filed. A S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... placed on the judgment rendered by a three-judge Bench of this Court in the case of Trustees of the Port of Madras through its Chairman vs. K.P.V. Sheikh Mohd.Rowther Co. Pvt. Ltd . (1997) 10 SCC 285 1 , wherein this Court while approving the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in M/s. K.P.V. Sheik Mohamed Rowthar vs. The Trustees of Port of Madras, ILR (1975) Vol.1 Madras 59 held that the demurrage charges have to be collected by the Port Trust only from the consignee and not from the steamer agent. After reading the aforesaid judgment, we doubted the correctness of the said judgment and we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment of this Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
