Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

http://www.judis.nic.in

18. In response to the aforementioned submissions, learned counsel. for contesting respondent/licensee (sole respondent now) made submissions, summation of which is as follows:

a) Madras Port Trust Vs. Hymanshu International by its Proprietor V.Venkatadri (dead) by Lrs. Judgement reported in (1979) 4 SCC 176 was pressed into service to say that Chennai Port ought not to have taken technical pleas. It was pointed out that out of the five fold challenge to impugned award, three are technical pleas.

http://www.judis.nic.in

20. This Court, having set out rival submissions now proceeds to discuss the same and give dispositive reasoning for arriving at a decision in captioned OP.

21. As would be evident from the narrative supra, learned counsel for licensee opened with the submission that Chennai Port ought not to have taken technical pleas. This submission was made by placing reliance on Madras Port Trust vs Hymanshu International reported in (1979) 4 SCC 176. A careful reading of Hymanshu case law which is short, crisp and epigrammatic brings to light that the facts there turn on Section 110 of the Madras Port Trust Act (II of 1905) and it appears to have arisen out of a suit. Short point in Hymanshu on facts was whether the claim for refund of wharfage, demurrage and transit charges was well founded. It is also a case where Chennai Port had deposited the entire refund at the time of leave being granted and such deposit was irrespective of the result of the appeal, besides undertaking to pay cost of the appeal. What is of greater significance is, in Hymanshu Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it cleat that if a plea is well founded, it has to be upheld by the court meaning, even it it is a technical plea, if it is well founded, it has to be upheld by the Court. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for Chennai Port, Hymanshu is not an authority http://www.judis.nic.in for a blanket proposition that no technical pleas can be raised by Port in cases of refund claims. There is one more distinguishing factor qua Hymanshu. That distinguishing factor is, Hon'ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that claim made by respondent therein was a just claim, which was supported as it were by a recommendation of Assistant Collector of Customs. Such a conclusion arrived at was on merits qua facts of that case and as already mentioned Hymanshu case arose out of a suit.