Calcutta High Court
The Board Of Trustees Of The Port vs Ghatal Steam Navigation Co. Ltd on 18 September, 2013
Author: Soumen Sen
Bench: Soumen Sen
CS No. 422 of 1980 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA OIRIDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT, CALCUTTA Versus GHATAL STEAM NAVIGATION CO. LTD.
B E F O R E:
The Hon'ble Justice Soumen Sen Dated, the 18th September, 2013.
Appearance:
Mr. Dhrubo Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Dipak Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv.
For the Plaintiff.
Mr. Maloy Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Pramit Roy, Adv.
Mr. Arindam Mukherjee, Adv.
Mrs. Mithua Sen, Adv.
For the Defendant No.1.
Mr. Ashok Banerjee, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Amitava Deb, Adv.
For the Defendant No.2.
The Court:- The suit was pending for a long time and it appears that considering the nature of the dispute involved, an order was passed on 10th August, 2012 directing the parties to make a 2 genuine attempts to settle the suit. Thereafter the suit remained adjourned from time to time.
It further appears that the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Kolkata Port Trust was directed to consider the proposal of the defendants for an amicable settlement.
On February 26, 2013 when the matter was taken up by me, I adjourned the suit in order to enable the Chairman of the plaintiff to consider the representation made by the defendant no.2. I have also recorded in my order that in view of the nature of disputes and submissions made before this Court, it appeared to me the matter would be settled between the parties. Thereafter the suit was adjourned from time to time in order to enable the parties to iron out their differences in between. Subsequently the defendant no.1 also appeared and expressed its desire to settle the dispute.
This Court appreciates the steps taken by the Chairman to have the matter settled amicably. Several sittings were held between the parties from time to time. This Court was also informed about the progress made by the parties. Ultimately the Chairman filed a report after considering the proposals of the defendant no.1 and defendant no.2. Such report was accepted by the parties. In view of acceptance of such report and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the aforesaid suit is disposed of 3 on the basis of the agreement reached between the parties before this Court.
The terms on which the parties have agreed to settle the dispute is produced before this Court by Mr. Dhrubo Ghosh the learned Counsel representing the plaintiff which appears to be lawful and both Mr. Maloy Ghosh, learned Counsel representing the defendant no.1 and Mr. Ashok Banerjee, learned Senior Advocate for the defendant no.2, on instructions, submitted that the suit be decreed on the said terms as agreed before the Chairman by the parties.
In view of the aforesaid, the suit is disposed of on the following agreed terms:-
a) There will be a decree for Rs. 1,11,88,186.39 [Rupees:
one crore eleven lakhs eightyeight thousand one hundred eightysix and paise thirtynine] only along with interest for Rs.68,46,002.58 [Rupees: Sixtyeight lakhs fortysix thousand two and paise fiftyeight] only computed at the rate of 7% per annum since the date of filing of the suit till 31.7.2013 against the defendant nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally in favour of the plaintiff.4
b) There will also be a decree for Rs.85,921.12[Rupees:
Eightyfive thousand nine hundred twentyone and paise twelve] only against the defendant no.1 (for dues in respect of the goomty-plate HB-1 at Bandhaghat till 31st July, 2013) along with interest for Rs.58,738.24P. [Rupees: Fiftyeight thousand seven hundred thirtyeight and paise twentyfour] only computed at the rate of 7% per annum since the date of filing of the suit till 31.7.2013 in favour of the plaintiff.
c) There will also be a decree for Rs.2,25,784.65 [Rupees:
Two lakhs twentyfive thousand seven hundred eightyfour and paise sixtyfive] only against the defendant no.2 (for dues in respect of the goomty-plate CG-113 at Ahiritola till 31st July, 2013) along with interest for Rs.1,45,490.78P [Rupees: One lakh fortyfive thousand four hundred ninety and seventy eight paise] only computed at the rate of 7% per annum since the date of filing of the suit till 31.7.2013 in favour of the plaintiff.
d) In consideration of the payment of the aforesaid sums and in consideration to the defendants paying the monthly charges of Rs.30,000/- per month (with 5 escalation 5.1% per annum with effect from September 19, 1997 and @ 2% per annum with effect from April 7, 2011), the defendant nos. 1 and 2 will be entitled to operate their services jointly under licence of the plaintiff between Ahiritola and Bandhaghat for an initial period of 11 months extendable to a further 4 tenures of 11 months each subject to fulfillment of obligations by the licences along with escalation and any other statutory payments under extant policieis.
e) In the event there is default in making payment by any of the defendants, the liability of the payment of the defaulting defendant shall be assumed by the other defendant who will then be entitled to run it's ferry on both the pontoons of Plate No.6.
f) In the event the other defendant also commits default in payment as aforesaid, the plaintiff will be entitled to treat the licence of the defaulting defendants as revoked and to evict the said defaulting defendant by initiating execution proceedings in respect of the decree passed herein and the plaintiff will be entitled to interest @ 7% per annum on the defaulting dues.
6
g) The joint licence to be renewed by the Kolkata Port Trust in the name of the defendant nos. 1 and 2 and separate bill be drawn for Aheritola Ghat and Salkia Ghat to release payment timely by the defendants. The Court records its appreciation for the efforts made by the Chairman, the parties and the learned Counsel representing the parties in order to resolve their disputes and differences.
In terms of the earlier direction recorded in the order dated 27th August, 2013, each of the parties in their respective suit had deposited a sum of Rs.45 lakhs with the plaintiff by way of a bank draft towards part satisfaction of the amount payable by each of the defendants to the plaintiff. Each of the parties shall pay the balance amount in 22 equal monthly instalments commencing from November, 2013 along with current monthly licence fees. The first of such instalment shall be paid on or before November 7, 2013 and all future instalments shall be paid on or before 7th of each succeeding month.
In view of the spirit of the settlement and at the same time taking into consideration the compensation to which the plaintiff would be entitled, this Court feels that the plaintiff would be entitled to interest at the rate of 7% and the defendants have also agreed to pay interest at the rate of 7%. The liabilities of the 7 defendants, accordingly, have been computed and each of the defendants have already deposited a sum of Rs.45 lakhs with the plaintiff. On such equitable consideration and to ensure that none of the parties suffer any prejudice, in my view payment of interest at the rate of 7% per annum would be just and fair under the facts and circumstances of the case.
The defendants are also directed to pay the licence fees in accordance with the agreed terms for the period of August and September on or before 7th October, 2013 and all future licence fees shall be paid month by month on or before 7th of each succeeding months.
The parties have informed this Court that Mr. Sailya Dhar, Advocate, was appointed as Special Officer and the defendants have deposited occupation charges with the Special Officer. The Special Officer is directed to hand over the funds lying to the credit of the plaintiff towards such occupation charges to Mr. Dipak Ranjan Mukherjee the present Advocate-on-Record of the plaintiff. Such payment shall be adjusted towards principal and proper accounts shall be furnished by the plaintiff to the defendants after such adjustments.
The suit is decreed accordingly.
8
The Department is directed to draw up decree as expeditiously as possible.
(SOUMEN SEN, J.) snn.
A.R.(CR).