1996(8) Supreme 618
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.I., S.G. Agrawal and Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, JJ,
Luga Bay Shipping Corporation & Anr. -Appellants
versus
The Board of Trustees of the Port of Cochin & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2426 of 1994
With
Civil Appeal No. 2427 of 1994
Decided on 22-11-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : S. Venkateshwaran, C.S. Vaidyanathan, Sr. Advs., Ms. Indu Malhotra, Ms. Shirin Khajuria, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Altaf Ahmad, Additional Solicitor General and M.P. Vinod, Advocates.
Held : In order to protect international trade and at the same time ensure that the damage caused to the property of the port is recovered before, the vessel leaves the port, it seems essential that the Board should be empowered to determine the quantum of damages and ensure that the vessel does not leave the port before depositing cash or providing security for the same. Besides, to avoid dislocation of traffic, it is essential that the damage caused to the port or property of the Board is repaired without loss of time, for which funds would be required. In the circumstances, it is therefore inevitable that the power to determine the damage must vest in the Board for, otherwise, the vessel may leave the port and the Board would be left to suffer the damage without recovering it from the offending vessel. Therefore, while conceding that the right to be heard before the quantum of damage is determined is an important right, in the very nature of things and having regard to the urgency of the matter, public interest demands that before the vessel leaves the shores of the country, the estimated damage is paid to or secured by the Board. The interests of justice, insofar as the Board is concerned, would not be safeguarded if this power is not vested in the Board and consequently the vessel is permitted to leave the shores of the country without securing the damage. Besides, if the Master or Owner of the vessel desires to question the quantum of damages determined by the Board, the law does not preclude the filing of a civil suit in that behalf. In the civil suit, the basis on which the quantum of damages was worked out by the Board would be fully reviewed and that would provide a post-decisional hearing to the Master or Owner of the vessel. (Para 13)
JUDGMENT
A.M. Ahmadi, CJI. - These two appeals arise from a common judgment of the Division Bench of High Court of Kerala on a reference made to it by a learned single Judge of that Court. The High Court found itself confronted with the question whether the Cochin Port Trust is entitled, under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, (hereinafter referred to as the Major Port Trusts Act ) the Indian Ports Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Indian Ports Act ) and the Regulations made thereunder, to demand an unconditional cash deposit from the owner of a ship which caused damage to the property of the Port Trust.
2. The appellants in Civil Appeal No. 2427/94, South India Corporation (Agencies) Ltd., are the agents of the vessel, M.T. Larnaca. The appellants in Civil Appeal No. 2426/94, M/s. Luga Bay Shipping Corporation, are the owners of the said vessel. The respondents are the Board of Trustees of the Port of Cochin, (hereinafter referred to as the Port Trust ), and its Deputy Conservator. The vessel entered the Port of Cochin on June 6, 1984 and was berthed at Berth No. 2. On June 14,1984, the vessel, while being shifted from Berth No. 2 to the North Tanker Berth, dashed against the northern side of the RCC platform on which the gravity fenders were suspended, causing damage to the platform. Notice of damage to the platform was served on June 20, 1984. The appellants do not dispute that the vessel was berthed in the North Tanker Berth on June 14, 1984. However, they deny that any damage was caused by the vessel to any property of the Port Trust during such berthing. The Port Trust, on the other hand, claims that the damage assessed by the Port Chief Engineer was of Rs. 33.82 lakhs. The second respondent, the Deputy Conservator of Port Trust, requested the local agents of the vessel, by a notice dated June 29, 1984, to deposit that amount. They were also informed that the vessel would be allowed to sail from the Port only after the amount was deposited.
3. The Shipping Corporation, the petitioner before the Court filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which was registered as Original Petition No. 5822 of 1984. It prayed for calling of the records leading to the issue of notice (Exhibit P.6) dated June 29, 1984 and to quash the same by an appropriate writ; to declare condition No. 6 of the Notification dated January 8, 1980 fixing the scale of rates and statement of conditions for levy of charges by the Port Trust under Sections 48, 49 and 50 of the Major Port Trusts Act ultra vires the Act and the Constitution; to declare Regulations No.3 and 43 of Cochin Port Trust Regulation, 1975 ultra vires the provisions of the Indian Ports Act and the Major Port Trusts Act and to restrain the respondents from enforcing the aforesaid two regulations. We will shortly advert to the. impugned provisions of the Notification dated Januarys 8, 1980 and the Cochin Port and Dock Regulation, 1975. The learned single Judge of the High Court referred the case to a Division Bench. The Division Bench posed the question whether the Cochin Port Trust is entitled, under the Major Port Trusts Act, the Indian Ports Act and Regulations made thereunder, to demand an unconditional cash deposit from the owner of the ship which allegedly caused damage to the property of the Port Trust. The Division Bench examined the provisions of Section 116 of the Major Port Trusts Act, and came to the conclusion that, in a situation like the one on hand, the amount, of damage must be determined by the Board and that the liability of the Master and owner of the vessel was absolute. Section 116 can be reproduced for ready reference :
"116. Recovery of value of damage to property of Board.-If, through the negligence of any person having the guidance or command of any vessel, or of any of the mariners or persons employed on such vessel, any damage is caused to any dock, wharf, quay, mooring, stage, jetty, pier or other work in the possessi
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.