ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Plaintiffs are statutory Corporation constituted under the provisions of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963 as amended by the Major Port Trust Amendment Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). The 1st Defendants are a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and carrying on business at the above address. According to Plaintiffs, 1st Defendants are importers/owners/consignees of the 89 reels containing Glazed News Print. The 2nd Defendants are a Limited incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and they were agents of the Vessel “Vishva Apurva” and, according to Plaintiffs, , therefore, were also the owners within the meaning of the expression “owner” as contained in section 2(o) of the said Act.

2. According to Plaintiffs, they are entitled to charge and levy wharfage, demurrage and other charges in respect of the goods landed and stored by Plaintiffs in the Docks at Bombay according to the scale of rates duly prescribed by the provisions of the said Act and to realize the charges by sale of the consignment if the said amount is not paid and if any deficit remains after sale of the consignment, they are entitled to claim the said amount from Defendants.

3. Plaintiffs have filed this suit for recovery of an amount of Rs 3,21,369.45 being the deficit in the port trust charges which remained to be paid even after sale of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd lots of the said consignment alongwith interest.

4. Brief facts are as under:-

5. According to Plaintiffs, some time in or about September, 1984 the 1st Defendants imported the consignment of 89 reels containing Glazed News Print. The said consignment was shown at Item No.72 of the Import General Manifest No.1199 dated 17th September, 1984 of the vessel “s.s. Vishva Apurva” and it was discharged by the said vessel after it came into the Docks at Bombay. The General Landing date and the Last Free day of the cargo of the said vessel were 1st October 1984 and 8th October, 1984 respectively. Out of the total number of 89 reels which were imported, 81 reels of the said consignment were listed for sale and sold in three different lots. The first lot of 16 reels was sold under Lot No.AA/406 on 8th December, 1986. The second lot of 55 reels was sold under Lot No.AA/412 on 8th December, 1986 and the third lot of 10 reels was sold under Lot No.AA/413 on 8th December, 1986. (The said lots are hereinafter referred to as “first lot”, “second lot” and “third lot”).

6. According to Plaintiffs, balance 8 reels were lying in the Docks and were to be sold if the deficit charges were not recovered after sale of the said three lots. According to Plaintiffs, the 1st Defendants were importers/owners/consignees of the said three lots and the 2nd Defendants were agents of the said vessel and also bailers /owners of the said consignment and, therefore, both of them were liable to take delivery and clear the said three lots within 7 days from the date of landing and to pay charges which accrued and were payable to Plaintiffs for the period during which the said thee lots remained in the custody of Plaintiffs in accordance with the rules. It is the case of Plaintiffs that the Defendants failed and neglected to clear the consignment and, as such, the said consignment remained in the custody of Plaintiffs.

7. It is the Plaintiffs’ case that since the first lot was not cleared for over two months from the date of landing, by letter dated 27th October, 1986 addressed to Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 Plaintiffs informed the Defendants that the said first lot was lying uncleared for over two months from the date of landing and, therefore, it was liable to be put up for sale under sections 61 and 62 of the Act and it would be sold in the sale which was proposed to be held on 10th November, 1986 or on any subsequent date without further notice if the said charges which had accrued are not paid within 10 days from the receipt of the said letter.

8. Accordingly, the