Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2007 (12) TMI 201

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ndar, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 29-11-1991 made in O.S.No. 1228 of 1990 on the file of the learned VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- It is not in dispute that the first respondent herein/first defendant was a Steamer agent of the ship viz., "Indian Goodwill", which arrived at Madras Port on 17-3-1986. A consignment of "One Steal Flat" under mark "GOEL STEEL CO MADRAS" was landed against line No. 101 of the manifest. The second respondent herein/second defendant was the consignee of the imported goods and carrying on business at Chennai. 3. It is seen that the appellant herein/plaintiff had gi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , apart, from marking the documents Exs. A..1 to A..24. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and no document was marked. 6. The Trial Court considering the oral and documentary evidence and also the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel, held that the second respondent being the consignee alone is responsible to pay the demurrage charges as claimed by the appellant/plaintiff and accordingly, the suit was decreed only as against the second respondent and the suit against the first respondent was dismissed by the Court, below. Aggrieved by which, this appeal has been preferred by the Appellant-Port trust, plaintiff in the suit. 7. Against the judgment and decree passed by Court, below, the second responde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h Knitters ) , wherein it has been held as follows:- "Section 2(o) contains the definition of "owner". In relation to goods the said section states that the world "owner" includes any consignor, consignee, shipper or agent for the sale, custody, loading or unloading of such goods. By referring to this sub-section this Court in Sun Export Corporation v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay (AIR 1998 SC 92) held that in the case of imports the liability to pay demurrage, on the endorsement being made on he bill of lading, would be that of the consignee. This is in consonance with the provisions of the Bills of Lading Act, 1856. The preamble of this Act provides that by the custom of merchants a bill of lading of goods being transfe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ondent herein. In fact the second respondent being the consignee is the bailor and the Port Trust, the appellant is the bailee and further, the consignee of the goods named in the bill of lading for the purpose, under the Port trust Act. 12. The learned counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in [1999 (112) E.L.T. 373 (S.C.) = AIR 1999 Supreme Court 2947 ( The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay and others v. M/s. Sriyanesh Knitters ), wherein, it has been held as follows:- "25. Section 2(o) contains the definition of "owner". In relation to goods the said section states that the word "owner" includes any consignor, consignee, shipper or agent for the sale, custody, loading or unloading of such goo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ee as the owner thereof. Reading the same along with the Bills of Lading Act the consignee of the goods named in the bill of lading or every endorsee of the bill of lading, for the purpose of MPT Act is regarded as the owner of the goods and it is from that owner that the appellant is en titled to recover charges under the MPT Act in respect of the said goods. The High Court was not right in holding that the contract was between the ship owner and the Port Trust. The correct position is that the contract is between the Port Trust and the holder of the bill of lading which, in this case, would be the consignee. It is the consignee which is the bailor with the Port Trust being the consignee." 13. As per Section 151 of the Indian Contract .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates