The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the Port Trust as a bailee for the loss caused to the goods under its custody, emphasizing its duty of care and precautions as per the Indian Contract Act.

K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J.

1. In the above appeals, the Board of Trustees of the Madras Port Trust represented by its Chairman put in issue the judgment and decree made in the respective suits fastening the liability on the Madras Port Trust for the damages on the ground that the goods warehoused by the respective consignees/plaintiffs in the Anchor-gate bonded Warehouse of the Madras Harbour belonging to the Madras Port Trust were destroyed in a fire-accident that has taken place on 7.6.1982 due to the negligence on the part of the Port Trust, Madras. In three suits viz., C.S. Nos. 496 of 1983, 288 of 1984 and 534 of 1985, the Collector of Customs has been shown as a defendant. It seems as against C.S. No. 534 of 1985, no appeal has been filed. In respect of the other two suits viz., C.S. Nos. 496 of 1983 and 288 of 1984, Appeal Nos. 46 of 1992 and 50 of 1992 have been filed among other appeals in which the claim is made against the Port Trust only.

2. Learned single Judge of this Court thought it fit to consolidate all the cases together heard and delivered the judgment in common since in all these cases, the claims arise out of the same cause of action. However, the plaintiffs have let in evidence independently in respect of their claim. The Port Trust let in evidence in their defence.

3. The learned Judge after taking into consideration of the legal submissions submitted by the counsel appearing for the respective plaintiffs and the defendants and upon considering the material evidences placed before it, both oral and documentary, ultimately came to the conclusion that the appellant Port Trust is liable for the loss that has occurred to the goods entrusted to the Port Trust by the various plaintiffs as a result of the fire accident that occurred in the bonded warehouse on 7.6.1982.

4. Mr. V.T. Gopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Port Trust, the appellant in all the above cases contended that the finding of the learned single Judge that even after warehousing of the goods, the Port Trust continues to be a bailee as per Section 43(1)(ii) of the Major Port Trusts Act is not sustainable in law. He contended that under Section 43(1)(ii) and the proviso to the said provision, the responsibility of the bailee shall attach to the Board only when a receipt under Section 42(2) of the Act has been given by the Board. The regulations framed on this behalf by the Central Government clearly states that the responsibility of the Board pursuant to the receipt issued would be only for a period of one week, when the goods are kept in the transit area. He further contended that as per the Customs Act, the Chennai Port Trust would only be a licensee of the public warehouse under the provisions of the Custorhs Act. The Customs Act does not impose any such liability on the warehouse keeper as has been specifically set out under the provisions of Major Port Trusts Act. Therefore, he contended that what is not specifically provided for under the Customs Act cannot be deemed to be so or in other words must be deemed to be excluded.

5. It is the further contention of the learned counsel that a conjoint reading of the provisions of Sections 62 and 64 along with Sections 57 and 58 makes the position clear that warehouses are licensees to be established for the purpose of facilitating the collection of duty by the Customs Authorities and such warehouses are licensees and controlled by the Customs Authorities. Except to the limited right of demanding the warehouse rent or charges at the rates fixed, the Port Trust has no further right in respect of either the deposit of the goods pending payment of duty in the warehouse or taking out the goods from the warehouse after payment of duty for home consumption. As per Section 62(3) of the Customs Act, the warehouse to be locked with a lock of the Customs Department and no person shall remove or break such lock. Even in the case on hand, in spite of the fact that one key has