Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Sriyanesh Knitters (supra). In that case it was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Board of Trustees, Bombay Port that the Board has a general lien in respect of any goods which came into the custody of the Board. It was repelled by the Division Bench with the observations that the plain reading of Sub-Section (1) of Section 59 of the Act indicates that the lien conferred on the Board under Section 59 of the Act is not a general lien but a lien on specific goods. The lien is limited only to those goods in respect of which the rates due are not paid. The Supreme Court upheld the view of the Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Sriyanesh Knitters (supra). It has been laid down that the lien of the Board is for the amount of the rates leviable under the Act and for the rent due to it. It is also made clear that the goods which can be sold in exercise of lien are only those in respect of which any amount is due and payable to the Board. The Supreme Court also observed that the High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the lien conferred on the Board under the MPTA was not a general lien but was a lien on specific goods. It is then submitted that the observations of the Division Bench in the case of Canoro Resources Ltd.
(1) (a) provides that the Board may sell "such goods" or so much thereof as may be necessary if rates payable to the Board in respect of "such goods" are not paid. The power conferred on the Board to sell the goods is in respect of the rates payable to the Board in respect of specific goods and the expression "such goods" leave no manner of doubt that the lien conferred on the Board under S. 59 of the Act is not a general lien but is a lien on specific goods."
59. Under Section 61(1), in exercise of its lien, the board is empowered to sell the said goods for realization of the amount due to it. Reading the two sections together it is clear that the goods which can be sold in exercise of its lien are only those in respect of which amount is due and payable to the Board. The words 'such goods' in S. 61(1) has reference to those goods in respect of which rates due to the Board have not bee fully paid.
9. Coming to the facts of the instant case the amount which was claimed by the appellants was in respect of the consignment of woollen rags. There can be little doubt that in respect of the amount claimed by the Board the provisions of Ss. 59 and 61(1) would have been applicable with regard to the said consignment of woollen rags. But the contention now is that it is in respect of the said dues, relatable to woollen rags, that the Board has a general lien on the subsequent consignment of acrylic fibre. This contention is clearly untenable because, as we have already observed, Ss. 59 and 61(1) give a lien on those goods in respect of which amount is claimed or due under S. 59. The Board was not demanding or claiming lien on acrylic fibre on the ground that any amount in respect of acrylic fibre was due. Once it appears that the lien referred to in Ss. 59 and 61(1) is only (on) those goods in respect of which amount is due it is clear that the said provisions do not contemplate a general lien as contended by the appellants. The High Court, in our opinion, was right in coming to the conclusion that the lien conferred on the board under S. 59 of the MPT Act was not a general lien but was a lien on specific goods."

From the aforesaid it becomes apparent that the lien of the KPT is limited and referable to specific goods in relation to which certain services have been performed under MPTA. This would include a general lien with regard to wharfinger charges plus demurrage. This would be on the basis of Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

We are also unable to agree with the submission of Mr. Anindya Mitra that KPT would be entitled to sell goods in its custody which may be necessary if any rent is payable to the Board. Section 61(b) provides as under: