Gujarat High Court
Kutch Shipping Agency P. Ltd. vs Board Of Trustees, Kandla Port Trust on 5 April, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001(127)ELT41(GUJ)
Author: D.M. Dharmadhikari
Bench: D.M. Dharmadhikari
ORDER B.C. Patel, J.
1. Being aggrieved by an order made by the Learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 380 of 2000 on 27-1-2000, the present appeal is filed by the dissatisfied petitioner.
2. The petitioner claiming the container without cargo addressed a letter to the Traffic Manager, Kandla Port Trust, Kandla.
3. It appears that the goods were imported and the importer is absconding as it is the case of the petitioner himself that the letter addressed to the owner/importer of the cargo has been returned undelivered with the postal remarks "the company is closed" which is tantamount to abandon of cargo. Learned Counsel placed reliance on Section 62(1) of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963 for raising a contention that the goods are required to be disposed of in the manner laid down in the Section and the amount is required to be recovered, deficit if any, from the owners and not from the supplier of the container. It is required to be noted that the goods arrived in containers which were loaded in the ship by the exporter. It was the duty of the importer to take the delivery of cargo in the container. There is no contract between the petitioner-appellant and the shipping company or the Kandla Port Trust. In absence of this, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the dispute involved would require recording of evidence and cannot be summarily executed upon exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the proper remedy for the petitioner would be to approach the Civil Court for claim of containers. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he cited an unreported decision of the Bombay High Court. [Writ Petition No. 1540/91 decided on 27-7-94 in case of Smart Shipping Company Pvt. Ltd. & Others v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay & Union of India]. Learned Counsel cited before us the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of M/s. Seashore Shipping and Ship Management Pvt. Ltd. v. Board of Trustees of Port, AIR 1989 Calcutta 212. The said case was relating to a demand of cargo rent from steamer agent and not the supplier of a container. So far as the Bombay case is concerned, it is very clear that the petitioners were the shipping agents for Neptune Orient Lines Ltd. The Bombay High Court has framed time bound programme to complete the exercise of disposal of cargo and releasing the dues. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Bombay High Court has taken that view.
4. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge was justified in rejecting the Special Civil Application. Hence the appeal is dismissed. The Civil Application is rejected.