Under Section 14 of Indian Ports Act, 1908, only vessel's owner liable for wreck removal; time charterer or cargo owner not disponent owner lacking possession/control, notice invalid against them without following statutory mechanism.

Judgment :

Manish Pitale, J.

1. The proceedings in this petition were remitted by the Supreme Court by its order dated 14.02.2025, after setting aside order dated 13.08.2021 passed by a Division Bench of this Court, disposing of the writ petition as infructuous, on the basis of the events that took place during the pendency of the petition. The Supreme Court found that the writ petition could not have been disposed of, as a pure question of law was required to be decided in the light of Section 14 of the Indian Ports Act, 1908 (for short ‘the said Act’) and that in that context, the lis between the parties was very much alive. The Supreme Court requested this Court to give priority to the matter for disposing it of expeditiously. In this backdrop, the writ petition was taken up for hearing and disposal.

2. The petitioner, formerly known as ISPAT Industries Limited, was engaged in the business of manufacturing steel at its plant located at Dolvi, Dharamatar, Raigad and for the said purpose, it was required to import large quantities of iron ore. The petitioner constructed a private jetty at Dharamatar and it’s cargo was being transported through the jetty to the said plant from waters upon which the respondent No.1 - Mumbai Port Trust (MPT), formerly known as Bombay Port Trust, was having control. As large vessels could not directly access the jetty, the cargo was required to be discharged at anchorage outside the port limits of respondent No.1 – MPT and it had to be transported to the petitioner’s jetty through the waters of the port in small barges. During monsoon season, the petitioner had to conduct its lighterage operations from Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT) anchorage to a jetty at Dharamatar.

3. A number of communications were exchanged between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 - MPT for permission to the petitioner to use the said waters for transporting cargo in barges from larger vessels outside the port limit to the petitioner’s jetty on payment of applicable charges. In this context, on 27.09.1994, the petitioner executed a contract with the respondent No.2 - N. S. Guzder & Co., under which the said respondent No.2 was responsible for providing barges for transporting the said cargo of the petitioner. Respondent No.3 - Shivam Engineers executed a memorandum of understanding (for short, ‘MOU’) with the respondent No.2 to provide barges, including a barge called M. V. Satyam on a time charter basis. On 09.01.1995, requisite permission was granted to the said barge M. V. Satyam under the provisions of the said Act to move in the said waters under the control of the respondent No.1 - MPT.

4. On 11.04.1995, the said barge M. V. Satyam, carrying iron ore from a larger vessel M. V. Aditya Gaurav to the petitioner’s jetty, sank in the harbour at anchorage W-1. In this backdrop, on 19.04.1995, the respondent No.1, through its Deputy Conservator, issued a notice addressed