Back
High Court Of Calcutta
DIPAK KUMAR SEN, SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN
BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF CALCUTTA - Appellant
Versus
INDIAN RAYON CORPORATION LTD. - Respondent
Matter 1480 Of 1986
Decided On : 02/05/1987
MAJOR PORT TRUSTS ACT, 1963 - WHARF RENT EXEMPTION - REFUND - ADJUSTMENT OF UNDER-CHARGE BILLS - LOCUS STANDI OF CONSIGNEE - LIEN FOR RATES AND RENTS - JURISDICTION OF COURT.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, an importer, claimed a refund of wharf rent paid to the appellant, the Calcutta Port Trust, for goods detained by the Customs authorities for special examination. The appellant refused to refund the amount, claiming that it had a lien on the goods for under-charge bills raised against the clearing agent, who had paid the wharf rent. The respondent filed a writ petition challenging the appellant's decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellant was not entitled to challenge the locus standi of the respondent or to contend that only the clearing agent could be treated as the owner of the goods. The court further held that the appellant was not entitled to adjust its claim in respect of other goods belonging to other parties on the excess amount paid by the respondent. The court also held that the appellant had no lien in respect of claims on account of other transactions on the goods involved in the instant case.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent had the locus standi to claim a refund of wharf rent paid to the appellant. 2. Whether the appellant was entitled to adjust its claim in respect of other goods belonging to other parties on the excess amount paid by the respondent. 3. Whether the appellant had a lien in respect of claims on account of other transactions on the goods involved in the instant case.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of the word "owner" in Section 2(o) of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 is only inclusive and not a comprehensive definition. A consignee is also to be considered as the owner within the meaning of the said section. 2. Under Section 59 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, the appellant has been given a right of lien for its rates and rents against the goods on which such rates and rents have accrued. Such lien, in our view, cannot be extended to other goods belonging to other persons. 3. Even under the general law, it is not open to the appellants to adjust its claims against particular goods of particular persons against other goods belonging to other persons or against money paid by another person, in respect of such other goods.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and order of the lower court, directing the appellant to refund to the respondent the amount due to it in law on the basis of the wharf rent exemption certificate issued by the Customs authorities within two weeks of the issue of the signed copy of the operative part of the judgment.
( 1 ) IN 1983, the Indian Rayon Corporation Limited the respondent No. 1 imported a consignment of 166 bales of Polyester Staple Fibre for home consumption which were shipped by the vessel S. S. Kunasbiri. The said goods arrived and were unloaded at the Port of Calcutta on the 12th November, 1983.
( 2 ) THE respondent No. 1 engaged M/s. Chatterjee and Sons, the respondent No. 4 clearing and forwarding agents authorised by the Customs for clearing the goods and a bill of entry for the aforesaid purpose was filed on the. 16th November, 1983.
( 3 ) THE Customs authorities, however, detained the goods for testing the chemical examination.
( 4 ) THE Customs authorities, however, permitted the respondent No. 1 to remove the said goods from the Calcutta Port and warehouse the same under Section 49 of the Customs Act, 1962. The said goods were removed from the Calcutta Port on the 31st January, 1984 when a sum of Rs. 1,98,009. 38p. was paid on account of wharf rent against a wharf rent bill issued by the Calcutta Port authorities. The goods were ultimately released by the Customs authorities on the 23rd February, 1984.
( 5 ) THE respondent No. 1, thereafter, applied to the Customs authorities for a wharf rent exemption certificate as the goods had been detained under Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962 for special examination and test for which the respondent No. 1 was not responsible.
( 6 ) PENDING the issue of the wharf, rent exemption certificate the respondent No. 1 under cover of its letter dated the 23rd June, 1984 submitted a claim bill or an application for refund of wharf rent paid in respect of the said goods as aforesaid and called upon the Calcutta Port authorities to register its claim. A letter from the respondent No. 4 dated the 28th July, 1984 authorising the respondent No. 1 to receive the amount of refund against its claim bill on behalf of the clearing agent was also forwarded.
( 7 ) SUBSEQUENT thereto, the Customs authorities issued a wharf rent exemption certificate in favour of the respondent No. 1. It was recorded in the certificate, inter alia, that the said goods had been detained by the Customs authorities from the 18th November, 1983 till the 26th December, 1983 and thereafter again from the 10th January, 1984 to the 23rd February 1984 aggregating 84 days for the purpose of special examination and chemical test.
( 8 ) UNDER cover of its letter dated the 17th July, 1984 the respondent No. 1 forwarded to the Officer concerned of the Calcutta Port Authorities the said wharf rent exemption certificate in original, another claim bill, the wharf rent bill of Calcutta Port authorities and a fresh letter of authority from the respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 1 called upon the Calcutta Port authorities to assess its claim and refund the amount to the respondent No. 1 expeditiously.
( 9 ) THE Calcutta Port authorities however kept the claim of the respondent No. 1 pending on the ground that the respondent No. 4 had failed to pay amounts due to the former on account of under-charges in respect of other transactions.
( 10 ) ON the 9th April, 1986 the Officer on Special Duty (Operation and Works) of the Calcutta Port Trust issued a letter to the respondent No. 1 stating, inter alia, that as the respondent No. 4, had failed to pay the under-charge bills raised against them, therefore, the amount refundable in respect of the said goods could not be released either to the respondent No. 4 or to the respondent No. 1.
( 11 ) BY this letter dated the 8th August, 1986, the Officer on Special Duty (Operation and Works) confirmed the stand of the Calcutta Port Authority and informed the respondent No. 1 that there was no valid ground to review the decision not to refund the claim.
( 12 ) ON or about the 16th September, 1986 the respondent No. 1 and Ganesh Lal Mundra the respondent No. 2 moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution against the Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
