BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.R. SWAMINATHAN, J.
PSA SICAL Terminals Limited Chennai, Rep by its Authorised Signatory - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Another - Respondents
WP (MD)No. 7368 of 2019 & WMP(MD)Nos. 5881 to 5882 of 2019
Decided On : 23-04-2019
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 and 19(1) - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 9 - Inviting bids - Development of Berth VII - License agreement - Second respondent developed another Container Terminal, namely Berth VIII - As of now, draught depth of Berth VIII has been increased to 14.2 meters which is 2.5 meters deeper than that of Berth VII which is handled by the writ petitioner herein - Second respondent has made a statement that there is going to be a further deepening of Berth VIII upto 15.5 meters - E trade has undergone a major change - Unless the draught of Berth VII is deepened, petitioner will not be able to cater to needs of larger vessels - On account of change in scenario, even smaller vessels that were earlier utilizing services of writ petitioner have switched over to Birth VIII considering other logistical advantages - As a result, volume of traffic handled by the writ petitioner has gone down drastically - At this rate, writ petitioners business will be absolutely ruined - Statistics in comparative table set out in affidavit filed in support of the writ petition speak for themselves –Held, case on hand is squarely covered by the principles laid down in (1994) 4 SCC 104 (Asstt. Excise Commissioner vs Issac Peter) - Contention that on account of the action of the second respondent, there is no longer any level playing field, is to be stated only to be rejected - Petitioner is not in a position to draw my attention to any specific clause in agreement which can be said to have been violated by second respondent - Petitioner was granted license to operate Berth No.VII in the year, that does not tie hands of second respondent Board from developing the other Berths ultimately. There is a larger national interest at stake - When there is march of technology, the major Ports are obliged to keep pace with the same. Otherwise vessels will simply pass by Tuticorin and go to Srilanka or other neighboring Nations - Therefore, second respondent cannot be faulted for developing Berth No.VIII and IX- If according to the petitioner as a result of such development, contract has become impossible of performance, the remedy open to petitioner is only to call off and issue termination notice or demand damages - Court dismiss this writ petition - Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed
V.O Chidambaranar Port Trust is a major Port Trust. It issued a global tender on 09.04.1997 inviting bids for development of Berth VII as a container terminal and to maintain the same for 30 years on build, operate and transfer basis. The writ petitioner won the bid and was granted the contract. A license agreement was entered into between the parties on 15.07.1998. The agreement envisages a minimum guaranteed traffic royalty in favour of the Port Trust. Clauses 7.3.3, 7.3.4 and 7.3.5 read as under:
“7.3.3. Traffic requirements The Licensee guarantees to handle at the Container Terminal, annual container traffic of the level given in the schedule below. For purpose of this Agreement, the annual traffic would represent the total of import/export and transshipment containers converted into TEUs handled at the Container Terminal.
Period
Total
Nil
1st Year of operation
148,800 TEU
2nd Year of operation
188,800 TEU
3rd Year of operation
228,000 TEU
4th Year of operation
268,000 TEU
5th Year of operation
300,000 TEU
6th Year of operation and onwards
i.e upto 30 years. 7.3.4. Productivity 7.3.4. Productivity
The Licensee agrees and undertakes that Gross Annual Average Productivity of quay side cranes at the terminal(s) to be provided by it shall not be less than 20 moves per hour per crane unless failure is attributed to factors outside the Licensee's control as specifically set out in Article 12.1.
7.3.5. Payment and Payment Terms 73.5.1 Initial Payment In consideration of the grant of this License, the Licensee shall pay to the Licensor an initial amount of Rs.45 million (Rupees Forty Five Millions only) simultaneously on the Date of Award of License.
The Licensee shall pay to the Licensor, royalty calculated on the basis of Minimum guaranteed traffic royalty rates, as set out in Appendix 12 irrespective of discounts in tariffs, if any, that may be granted by the Licensee. Royalty shall be paid every Month on the basis of annual minimum guaranteed traffic as set out in Appendix 12. Monthly royalty shall be initially calculated proportionately to the yearly royalty based on the annual minimum guaranteed traffic as per the Appendix 12 and and shall be paid latest by 7th Day of the subsequent Month. At the end of each 3 Month period the total royalty payable shall be computed and the difference, if any, between the amount of royalty actually payable, calculated on the basis of actual TEUs handled and the corresponding amount as set out in the Appendix 12, and the amount of royalty already remitted, shall be paid by the Lincensee to the Licensor within fifteen Days of expiry of the relevant 3 Months period.
In case the actual traffic falls below the annual minimum guaranteed traffic as guaranteed by the Licensee and as set out in the Appendix 12, then the Licensee shall pay the amount of royalty as per its annual minimum guaranteed traffic.
It is to be noted that the minimum guaranteed traffic royalty rate as set out in Appendix 12 will be adjusted upwards or downwards as a one time measure of fixation of tariff for containers by the TAMP for the first time. This adjustment will be carried out by the Port based on a single percentage (plus or minus) to be applied to all the figures quoted as royalty vide Appendix 2.”
2. The writ petitioner is thus under an obligation to make a minimum guaranteed payment. The writ petitioner is having certain disputes in this regard and they are presently pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) Nos.33260 and 33261 of 2017.
3. The case of the writ petitioner is that when the license agreement was entered into, the draught at the terminal was upto 10.7 meters. In the year 2014, the second respondent developed another Container Terminal, namely Berth VIII. As of now, the draught depth of Berth VIII has been increase
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.