Lack of privity of contract prevents the 6th respondent from interfering with the movement of the petitioner’s containers.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 13^th day of December, 2024 The writ petition is filed, inter alia, to direct the respondents 1 and 3 to provide necessary police protection to the petitioner to remove the laden and empty containers from the Container Freight Station (CFS), Ernakulam.

2. The petitioner is an agent of an Overseas Shipping Company and is engaged in the business of providing lading, shipping and logistical support service to Overseas Container shipping companies operating through the ports in India. The containers managed by the petitioner are stored at the CFS managed by the 5^th respondent. The 5^th respondent has taken the CFS on lease from the 6^th respondent, who in turn has an agreement with 4^th respondent for the operation and management of the yard. Due to differences of opinion between the respondents 5 and 6, the 6^th respondent is obstructing the movement of the containers from the CFS, which is causing significant delay and monetary loss to the petitioner. By orders in WP(C)Nos.28682/2024 and 32035/2024 this Court has directed the 6^th respondent to clear the obstruction and allow the smooth flow of freight transport from the CFS. The petitioner has no privity of contract with the 6^th respondent. The petitioner had entered into the contract only with the 5^th respondent. There are no dues payable by the petitioner to the 6^th respondent. The obstruction caused by the 6^th respondent is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, the learned Government Pleader and the respective counsel appearing for the respondents 5 and 6 .

4. When the writ petition came up for consideration, on 15.10.2024, this Court passed the following interim direction:-

“(i) The petitioner shall pay the amounts payable as per the invoices, if any pending, by remitting the same before the Registry of this Court in the form of a Demand Draft. The petitioner shall furnish the ledger folios pertaining to respondents 5 and 6 from 01.04.2024 onwards.

(ii) On the above condition being satisfied, the containers belonging to the petitioner shall be permitted to be taken out from the MIV yard of the 6^th respondent.

(iii) If outward movement of the containers is obstructed, inspite of the petitioner complying with the above directions, the 3^rd respondent shall intervene and do the needful.”

5. Subsequently, on 12.11.2024, this Court clarified that if the petitioner cannot produce the invoices in respect of the payments to be effected and if no payment is due, letters/certificates to that effect be produced.

6. When the writ petition subsequently came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the 5^th respondent submitted that there is no amount payable by the petitioner as on 30.07.2024. The 5^th respondent has filed an affidavit to the above effect.

7. On a consideration of the facts and materials placed on record, it is an undisputed fact that the 6^th respondent has filed MAARB No.160/2024 before the Commercial Court, Ernakulam, against the 5^th respondent under Section 9A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , (‘Act’, in short) for interim reliefs. Subsequently, the 6^th respondent has also filed ARB No.246/2024 before this Court under Section 11 of the Act to appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes with the 5^th respondent.

8. In view of the categoric statement of the

5^th respondent that no amount is due from the petitioner, the interim orders passed by this Court and since there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the 6^th respondent, I am of the definite view that the 6^th respondent has no legal right to withhold the containe