9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports, Kanpur. It is against this licence that the first defendants imported the above 27 drums. The general landing date of cargo from the said vessel was 10-4-1974 and the last free date for clearance of the goods was 17-4-1974. At the time of landing, out of 27 drums, three drums were found short. It is not in dispute that out of the remaining 24 drums, one was destroyed in fire and one was sold by public auction. The first defendant sought clearance of the goods but the Deputy Collector of Customs by his order dated 18-3-1976 confiscated the goods. The order of the Deputy Collector of Customs was received by Bombay Port Trust on 23-4-1976. After the receipt of the confiscation order, Bombay Port Trust by their letter No. C/2A-210/99A/ of 76.77, dated 28-4-1976 informed the defendants that the consignment has been confiscated and the defendants should clear the Port Trust charges from the date of landing till the date of confiscation. It is stated that the first defendants clearing agent M/s. Eagle Transport Services by their letters dated 17-3-1978 and 24-5-1978 informed that they had already demanded Port Trust charges amounting to Rs. 7057.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion to pursue the proceeding against the respondents. Because the question involved in this case is a recurring one. 4.At the outset. I shall deal with this aspect of the matter, before I proceed to advert to the other contentions raised by the petitioners on merit. To my mind, there is force in the plea of the petitioners that it would be appropriate and in the interest of justice to decide the question of law raised in the present writ petition. But, I am inclined to do so on the assurance given by the petitioners that the petitioners shall not pursue the matter further against the respondents even if they were to succeed in this petition; because the claim set up against the respondents in the subject suit is only for a sum of Rs. 7055.67 ps. and as observed by the trial Court, the petitioners have already recovered sum of Rs. 3000/- out of the said amount, which was required to be adjusted. Indubitably the question of law raised by the petitioners is of substantial importance and is a recurring one. In the circumstances, I would proceed to decide the present writ petition on merit. 5.Insofar as the merit is concerned, the learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 29-7-2002. Again on that day none appeared for the respondents. In the circumstances, hearing of writ petition was concluded on that day and the matter is kept today i.e. on 8-8-2002 for judgment. Even today none appeared for the respondents when the matter was called in the morning session and therefore, it was kept again at 2.45 p.m. and again at 4.00 p.m. Accordingly, I have no option but to proceed to decide the matter as ex parte against the respondents. 7.On giving serious thought to the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners, I have no hesitation in taking the view that the approach of the trial Court is completely amiss; whereas, the issue of limitation ought to have been answered in favour of the petitioners. I shall presently record the reasons for taking this view. We have already made reference to the provisions of Section 58 of the Major Port Trusts Act. On plain language of the said provision, to my mind, it is an enabling provision-which enables the petitioners-Bombay Port Trust to claim recovery of the payment of rates of goods on happening of certain events specified therein. It provides that the liability of payment of rates commences immediately on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen the order of confiscation was passed. In that case, the suit as filed by the petitioners on 14-4-1979 would be barred by imitation having been filed beyond 3 years. However, in this case, the learned Counsel contends that the right to sue would accrue to the petitioners on acquiring knowledge of the existence of confiscation order, when they were apprised about that order on 23-4-1976. In other words, it is contended that it is on and from 23-4-1976 that the right to sue accrued or got crystallized in favour of the petitioners. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1961 SC 1500 in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. The Dy. Land Acquisition Officer and another. In that case the Apex Court has observed that making of the order "must mean either actual or constructive communication of the said order to the party concerned". Relying on this decision, it is contended that since the confiscation order was admittedly communicated to the petitioners on 23-4-1976, the limitation would start on and from that date and the suit having been filed within 3 years therefrom i.e. on 16-4-1979, the same will have to be held within limit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e efficacy and purport of that provision. If this be so, then this decision has no application to the present case. The Court below has mainly proceeded to decide the matter only on the above basis which, to my mind, is improper. The trial Court has observed that right to sue accrued to the petitioners everyday from the landing of the goods on 10-4-1974 and therefore, the suit for recovery of the amount could be confined only for the period of 3 years prior to the institution of the suit. That reasoning clearly over looks the correct purport of Section 58 of the Act, as discussed above. 11.The learned Counsel for the petitioners has rightly relied on the decision of this Court in Suit No. 194 of 1976 in the case of The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Caravan Hosiery Factory and others. In that case the contention raised on behalf of the Defendants was that the claim of the Port Trust for wharfage and demurrage charges for the period from 28-9-1972 to 27-8-1973 was barred by limitation as the suit was filed only on 13-1-1976. In that decision, analyzing the rival contentions, the Court proceeded to answer the issue against the Defendants by observing that actual amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
