JUDGMENT - KARNIK D.G., J.:—Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel submits that facts in both the suits and both the notice of motions are similar except change of dates and numbers of containers. It would therefore be, convenient to refer to the facts in Suit No. 3609 of 2003.

2. Plaintiff No. 1 is a shipping company. The plaintiff No. 3 was agent of the plaintiff No. 1 till April, 1995 and plaintiff No. 2 has been appointed as its agent since February, 1998. The defendant No. 1 is the Port Trust constituted under the Bombay Public Trust, 1879 and functioning under the Major Port Trust Act, 1963. The defendant No. 2 is shown as "Notify party/Intermediate consignee" in the relevant Bill of Lading. Mohammed and Nassari Co. WLL are consignors who shipped the goods (21 containers of steel scrap) through the defendant No. 1, to Mumbai Port under a Bill of Lading dated 26th June, 1993. Goods were to be delivered to the order of the shipper and name of the defendant No. 2 was only shown as "Notify Party"/Intermediate consignee" in the relevant Bill of Lading. In July, 1993 goods arrived at Bombay Port and were delivered by the plaintiff No. 1 to the defendant No. 1, Port Trust. There were some disputes between the plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant No. 2 who contended that the plaintiff No. 1 was bound to deliver the goods to it at Ludhiana under the contract. On this count, the defendant No. 2 did not clear the goods. As the goods were not cleared within a period of two months, the defendant No. 1 issued a notice for sale of the goods on 10th November, 1993. Thereupon, the defendant No. 2 filed two suits in the Court of the sub-judge, at Ludhiana, one against the plaintiff No. 1 claiming mandatory injunction directing the plaintiff No. 1 to deliver the goods to the defendant No. 2 at Ludhiana, and another against the defendant No. 1, the defendant No. 2 claiming injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from selling the goods in pursuance of the sale notice dated 10th November, 1993. An injunction was granted by the sub-judge restraining the defendant No. 1 from effecting the sale, which was vacated only on or about 27th August, 1997. The plaintiff was not a party filed against the defendant No. 1 and claims to be unaware of any injunction granted against the defendant No. 1. After vacating of the injunction, the defendant No. 1 attempted to sell the goods for the recovery of the demurrage. However, in the suit filed by the defendant No. 1 against the defendant No. 2, in respect of the goods, Receiver was appointed by this Court on 9th October, 1997 with power to sell the goods. The goods have ultimately been sold in October, 2002. It is not in dispute between the parties that goods which wee delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant No. 1 by the plaintiff in November, 1993 remained in its custody till their sale.

3. According to the defendant No. 1, it is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 6.53 crores (amount rounded of) by way of demmurage and other charges in respect of the said 21 containers. The defendant No. 1, therefore, issued four notices of demand dated 29th March, 2003, 3rd June, 2003, 11th July, 2003 and 29th July, 2003 (Exhibits G., J., J. and L.) for recovery of demurrage and other charges due to it. The plaintiff challenged the said notices by filing of a writ petition which was withdrawn with liberty to file a suit as the petition involved disputed questions of fact. The plaintiff has accordingly filed the present suit in which the present notice of motion has been taken out inter alia for an injunction restraining the defendants from implementing and/or acting in furtherance of the said notices and restraining the defendant No. 1 from taking any coercive steps for the recovery of the demmurage and other charges and exercising a lien under section 171 of the Contract Act.

4. The learned Counsel contended that even though the goods were delivered to the defendant No. 1 by the plaintiff No. 1, as a ship o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document