Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. It is stated that by a Nomination message dated 12-07-1999 addressed to Collector of customs, Chennai, Traffic Manager, Chennai, Transchart, New Delhi, IPL and the respondent, the Assistant Director (Shipping), Department of fertilizers, Government of India, New Delhi nominated Chennai as the Discharge port for full discharge, informed the expected time of arrival (ETA) as 26-07-1999, reserved their right to nominate a second port of discharge and nominated one Indian Potash Limited (IPL) as receivers. Through this message, it was also informed that Stevedores would be appointed by the Receivers and the respondent was asked to advise the Master of Vessel to proceed to Chennai port immediately and fixed the discharge rate post berthing at 1750 MTs per day for IPL.

4. Further, a letter of authority was issued by MMTC authorizing IPL "sign Bill of Entry in respect of vessel Sadan Katanoglu (23703.210)" and "to handle/take delivery of Urea Cargo from the Vessel arriving at Chennai Port around 26-07-1999" and the same was informed to the petitioner.

5. Accordingly, IPL (the receivers) appointed M/s. Sea Shore Logistics as their Stevedoring-cum C & F agents for the said vessel on 26-07-1999 and requested them to complete the customs and port formalities before the arrival of the vessel with an expected discharge rate of 2000 mts per day as per the Charter party.

11. The vessel, however, berthed only on 31-07-1999 and commenced discharge. On 12-08-1999, the vessel was pulled out as the Stevedores appointed by IPL were unable to maintain the discharge rate set by the port authorities as their minimum norm. The vessel could however gain berth due to the intervention of the Government authorities on 17-08-1999.

12. Since the stevedores did not improve the discharge rate, despite several reminders and written warning, IPL terminated the said contract and appointed M/s. Express Clearance Agency in their place to discharge the balance cargo.

28. The petitioner has further submitted that the respondents or their nominees were responsible for fulfillling the conditions of the Charter Party at the discharge port as per the terms of the contract. It was the respondent who had nominated their receiver-IPL to fulfilll its obligations. The receiver in turn admittedly appointed an "inexperienced and inefficient" stevedore to discharge the cargo from the vessel. No objections were raised by IPL/stevedores on the Master as to the non-receipt of Expected Time of Arrival (ETA) and the NOR was accepted subject to the terms and conditions of the Charter Party. The stevedores were unable to maintain the minimum discharge rate which resulted in the removal of the vessel from berth twice and the termination of their contract. It is in consequence to the termination of the contract unilaterally without quantifying the stock unloaded and without settling the accounts, that the said stevedores filed the suit to obtain injunction orders. It has been pleaded that if the respondents had exercised due care in appointing the stevedores, such delays would not have arisen as also the delays caused by the injunction order. Therefore, it is the case of the petitioner that due to the facts stated aforesaid the court injunctions would not fall under the clause of Force Majeure as Acts of the Government. It is submitted that the said clause would apply only where a contract would frustrate due to a supervening impossibility over which neither of the parties could have control.