The second paragraph of Section 87 of the Bombay Port Trust Act does not limit the Board's liability under Section 61B of the Act, which imposes on the Board the responsibility of a bailee for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of goods of which it has taken charge.

Headnote:
BOMBAY PORT TRUST ACT - LIMITATION OF SUITS - LIABILITY OF BOARD FOR LOSS OF GOODS - SCOPE OF SECTION 87 - CONSTITUTIONALITY - ARTICLES 14, 19(1)(F) AND (G).
Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs, a private limited company, imported four cases of Cellulose Tapes and Bench Dispensers from London. The goods arrived at the Bombay docks, and the plaintiffs paid the necessary customs duty. The Docks Manager of the Board delivered only one of the four cases to the plaintiffs, and the remaining three cases were lost while in the custody of the Board. The plaintiffs filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 2,966/- by way of damages, alleging that the loss was due to the negligence, malfeasance, and nonfeasance of the Board's administration. The Board raised the defense that they are not liable for the misconduct, negligence, or malfeasance of their servants and repudiated their liability under Section 87 of the Bombay Port Trust Act.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the second paragraph of Section 87 of the Bombay Port Trust Act, which exempts the Board from liability for any misfeasance, malfeasance, or non-feasance of any employee appointed under the Act, does not limit the Board's liability under Section 61B of the Act, which imposes on the Board the responsibility of a bailee under Sections 151, 152, and 161 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of goods of which it has taken charge.
Issues: 1. Whether the second paragraph of Section 87 of the Bombay Port Trust Act limits the Board's liability under Section 61B of the Act. 2. Whether the second paragraph of Section 87 contravenes Articles 14, 19(1)(f), and (g) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The second paragraph of Section 87 of the Bombay Port Trust Act protects the Board from vicarious liability for torts committed by its employees but does not extend to cases where the Board is sued for a breach of duty on its part. 2. It is not necessary to decide whether the second paragraph of Section 87 contravenes any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution since the Board's liability under Section 61B is not limited by the said paragraph.
Final Decision: The suit was returned to the Bombay Small Causes Court for disposal according to law, with no order as to costs in the High Court.

JUDGMENT - Tarkunde, J.

1. This suit was filed in the Bombay Small Causes Court for the recovery of Rs. 2,966/- by way of damages. The plaintiffs are a private limited company carrying on business as importers and merchants. The defendants are the Trustees of the Port of Bombay, hereinafter referred to as the Board, a statutory body incorporated under Section 4 of the Bombay Port Trust Act, 1873. The plaintiffs say that they imported four cases of Cellulose Tapes and Bench Dispensers from London, that the four cases arrived at the Bombay docks, that the plaintiffs paid the necessary customs duty on the goods, that the Docks Manager of the Board delivered to the plaintiffs only one of the four cases, and that the remaining three cases were not delivered to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs say that the three cases were lost when in the custody of the Board, and that they were lost solely due to the acts of negligence, malfeasance and nonfeasance on the part of the Boards administration and also due to want of proper care and caution which the Board were bound in law to take in respect of the said goods. One of the defences raised in the suit was that the Board are not liable for the misconduct or negligence or malfeasance of their servants and that the Board repudiate their liability under Section 87 of the Bombay Port Trust Act. iN view of this defence, the plaintiffs applied to this Court for a transfer of the suit under Article 228 of the Constitution on the ground that, in the plaintiffs submission, Section 87 of the Bombay Port Trust Act is repugnant to the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, and that it was ne-cessary to transfer the suit in order that the constitutional question may be decided by this Court. A bench consisting of the Chief Justice and Chandrachud J. granted the application, and, while doing so, directed that judgments should not be delivered in eight other suits pending in the Bombay Small Causes Court and six suits pending in the City Civil Court wherein the same constitutional question has been raised.

2. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Mr. Amin ar gued before us that the second paragraph of sec tion 87 of the Bombay Port Trust Act is repug nant to Article 14 and to Article 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution, and is therefore void and of no legal effect. Section 87 is in the following terms: --

"87. Limitation of suits, etc. -- No suit or other proceeding shall be commenced against any person for anything done, or purporting to have been done, in pursuance of this Act, without giving to such person one months previous notice in writing of the intended suit or other proceeding, and of the cause thereof, nor after six months from the accrual of the cause of such suit or other proceeding. The Board shall not be responsible for any misfeasance, malfeasance or non-feasance of any employee appointed under this Act;

nor, if they should be appointed by the Central Government, under the Indian Ports Act, 1875, Conservators of the port for any misfeasance, malfeasance or non-feasance of any Deputy Conservator, Master-attendant or Harbour-master, or of any assistant or deputy of any such employee, or of any person acting under the authority or direction of or in subordination to any such officer, assistant or deputy:

nor for any damage sustained by any vessel in consequence of any defect in any of the moorings, hawsers or other things belonging to the Board which may be used by such vessel;

nor shall the Board, or any of the said employees, be liable in damages for any act bona fide done, or ordered to be done, by them in pursuance of this Act.

Mr. Amins objection was confined only to the second paragraph of the section, which says that the Board (i.e. the present defendants) shall not be responsible for any misfeasance, malfeasance or non-feasance of any employee appointed under this Act.

3. In order to appreciate Mr. Amins arguments, it is necessary to refer to Sections 61A and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document