9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent. As there was delay in selling the goods even after the orders were passed by this Court and, therefore, the aforesaid burden to pay demurrage charges cannot be fasten on the respondent. Thus modify the order of the learned Single Judge to the extent that the demurrage charges would not be payable by the respondent for the period after expiry of six months from 4th April, 1988. The appellant will be liable to pay demurrage charges for this period. - 837, 840 and 841 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 16-7-2007 - M.K. Sharma, C.J. and Sanjiv Khanna, J. [Order]. - These appeals deal with similar issues on both law and facts and, therefore, we propose to dispose of all the three appeals by this common judgment/order. 2. These app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he goods were stolen, which were valued at Rs. 8,37,879/-. The demurrage charges were also sought to be deducted from the sale proceeds, which were objected to by the respondent on the ground that the respondent was not responsible for the delayed sale by the customs authorities. The aforesaid issues were considered by the learned Single Judge under the impugned order dated 6th July, 2004 and the writ petitions filed by the respondent were allowed and a writ of mandamus was issued directing the appellant to reimburse the respondent the amount which would have been realised from the sale of goods stolen from the custody of the appellant be paid to the respondent at the rate at which the goods were sold. It was held that demurrage charges sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the customs authorities and ultimately came to be sold only in the year 1998 and in the process demurrage was being charged by the port authority, which is sought to be passed on to the respondent. In view of the aforesaid position, we are of the considered opinion that there was delay in selling the goods even after the orders were passed by this Court and, therefore, the aforesaid burden to pay demurrage charges cannot be fasten on the respondent. Division Bench had passed order dated 4th April, 1988 far sale of the goods to be completed within six months. In these circumstances, we modify the order of the learned Single Judge to the extent that the demurrage charges would not be payable by the respondent for the period after expiry o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
