Dmt v. Messrs. Daffodil Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 ss. 61, 62, 63
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. VIII r. 10
Judgment
Plaintiff Versus Messrs. Daffodil Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. … Defendants Mr. U.J. Makhija i/by Mulla & Mulla for the Plaintiff. CORAM : A.A. SAYED, J. DATE : 24 FEBRUARY 2012. P.C.
The Plaintiff has filed the above suit to recover Port Trust charges amounting to Rs. Rs.1,01,304.06 paise and Dmt 2 s3572-93 further interest on the principal amount at the rate of 18% p.a. From the date of suit till payment or realization and costs of the suit.
The Plaintiff are the owners of Docks at Mumbai. In or about December, 1989, the Defendants imported a consignment of 80 drums in container no. SLDU-2838799 containing Isoprapyl Alcohol, which were discharged into the custody of the Plaintiff at the Port of Mumbai from the vessel m.v. Velenje . Prior to the berthing of ‘ ’ the said vessel the Agents of the said vessel had furnished to the Plaintiff an Import General Manifest bearing No. 3012 dated 11th December 1989 showing the cargo which was intended to be discharged from the said vessel at the Port. In the said Import General Manifest, the Defendants were shown as the importer/consignee/owners of the said consignment at Item No.
The General Landing Date and the Last Free Day of the cargo of the said vessel fell on 15th December 1989 and 20th Dmt 3 s3572-93 December 1989.
The Defendants who were owners of the said consignment were required to clear the said consignment but they failed to do so. The Plaintiff therefore called upon the Defendants to clear the said consignment and on failure thereof the Plaintiff became entitled to sell the said consignment under Sections 61 and 62 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. The Plaintiff called upon the Defendants and the Vessel Agents to clear the said consignment. The Vessel Agents addressed a letter dated 20th April 1990, to the Defendants informing them to clear the said consignment and that since the said consignment was lying uncleared it was being put up for sale and that the Defendants would become liable to pay the Port dues and sale deficit and all other charges. The Vessel Agents therefore requested the Defendants to clear the said consignment since they had obtained a Delivery Order from the Vessel Agents. A copy of the said letter was also endorsed to the Plaintiff. Thereafter, by letters dated 21st April 1990, and Dmt 4 s3572-93 25th July 1990 the Plaintiff called upon the Defendants to clear the said consignment. However, they failed to do so.
After following due procedure, viz. publication in the Official Gazette and advertisements in newspapers, the said consignment was put up for sale and was sold on 10th September 1990 under Lot No. DD/4693 for Rs.4,13,838.38 paise. The sale proceeds were adjusted in accordance with the provisions of Section 63 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 towards expenses of sale, customs duty and Port Trust charges. After adjusting, the sale proceeds a sum of Rs.97,182.46 paise remained in deficit which the Plaintiff became entitled to recover.
The Plaintiff made a demand for payment of charges upon the Vessel Agent. In response, the Vessel Agents by letter dated 26th April 1993 informed the Plaintiff that they had issued a Delivery Order on 12th January 1990 to the consignees Clearing Agents and therefore they were not liable Dmt 5 s3572-93 to pay Port Trust charges.
By letters dated 14th June 1993, 25th June 1993, 23rd July 1993 and 2nd August 1993 the Plaintiff called upon the Defendants to pay the said amount but the Defendants failed to do so. The Plaintiff have therefore filed the above suit.
The Defendants have failed to file appearance and Written Statement despite service of Writ of Summons. The claim of the Plaintiff has gone uncontroverted. The suit is listed for ex-parte decree.
The Plaintiff has filed an Affidavit in lieu of Examination-in-Chief and Compilation of original documents and the claim of the Plaintiff stands proved on the basis thereof. The Plaintiff has made out a case for grant of reliefs and they are entitled to a decree under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Dmt 6 s3572-93
The suit shall stand decreed in terms of prayer clause (a) with a modification that the Plaintiff shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of suit till realization.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 — ss. 61, 62, 63; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. VIII r. 10.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 24 Feb 2012. The bench was A A SAYED.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.