Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 186 (2.51 seconds)
Documents citing Shipping Corpn. Of India Ltd vs C.L. Jain Woolen Mills & Ors on 10 April, 2001

M/S.K.Steamship Agencies Pvt. Ltd vs M/S.Balaji Dekors on 4 July, 2024

(i) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shipping Corpn. of India Ltd. v. C.L. Jain Woollen Mills, [(2001) 5 SCC 345] held that even in cases where confiscation orders passed by the customs authorities are set aside and detention orders are held to be illegal, claims of a carrier based on the terms and conditions of the contract between the importer and the carrier cannot be nullified since every consignee of goods named in a Bill of Lading and every endorsee of a Bill of Lading, is vested with absolute right over the goods under the Bills of Lading Act, 1956. It was further held that the Bill of Lading being the mercantile document of Page 210/309 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.2235 of 2021 etc. batch title, clauses therein relating to payment of charges in case of non-clearance of goods within the free time available as well as those relating to carrier's applicable tariff and provisions as to lien on the goods for all sums payable to the carrier under the contract shall have full force. Since the provisions of the Bill of Lading unequivocally confer power on the carrier to retain the goods until the dues are paid, such rights cannot be nullified by the issuance of a certificate of detention by the Customs Authorities in the absence of provisions in the Customs Act authorising to do so.
Madras High Court Cites 187 - Cited by 0 - M Shaffiq - Full Document

Navneet Kumar Didwania vs Commissioner Of Customs (Port) And Ors. on 17 June, 2002

27. True, as contended by Mr. Samit Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, the Supreme Court in Shipping Corporation of India v. C.L. Jain Woolen Mills' case did not interfere with the order of the Delhi High Court absolving the importer of the liability to pay demurrage charges. The reasons therefore are as stated in para 4 of the judgment namely, that there was specific direction of the Delhi High Court in that regard and that decision having reached finally by the dismissal of the special leave petition, the liability of the importer to pay the demurrage charged ceased and that question, it was held, cannot be reopened.
Calcutta High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

M/S Puneet Expo vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 October, 2010

16. As regards the submission that it is the Customs Department that should be asked to pay the demurrage charges, this Court finds that each of the decisions relied upon by the learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner turned on their own peculiar facts. In none of them was there a situation where the Petitioner had completely refused to pay any demurrage charges and the Court directed the Department of Customs to pay the demurrage charges. On the contrary, the decisions in Shipping Corporation of India v. C.L. Jain Woolen Mills and International Airport Authority v. Grand Slam International answer the question against the Petitioner.
Delhi High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Union Of India vs Asian Food Industries on 24 February, 2023

8.2. We are not in agreement with the submissions made by the appellant that the respondent no.1 ought to have a taken a recourse of the civil law by preferring the suit and this could not have been decided without adducement of evidence and also following the procedure of cross examining the person. According to us, the learned Single Judge has committed no Page 42 of 46 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 25 20:40:27 IST 2023 C/LPA/665/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2023 error in directing the respondent authority to pay the demurrage. We must not be oblivious of the fact that the Apex Court in case of Shipping Corporation of India (supra) had been quite clear that the goods in question had already been directed to be released without payment of demurrage charges. It was also the case where the Court found that High Court had already concluded to the effect that the detention of the goods by the Customs Authorities was illegal and such illegal detention prevented the importer from releasing the goods. Therefore, the Customs Authorities would be bound to bear the demurrage charges in absence of any provision absolving the Customs Authority from that liability. Here the facts have grossed out.
Gujarat High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - S G Gokani - Full Document

Suren International Limited vs Union Of India & Ors. on 20 October, 2010

17. This was reaffirmed in Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. v. C.L. Jain Woolen Mills. In the context of the Major Port Trusts Act, the position was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Om Shankar Biyani. In view of the settled position in law the plea of the Petitioner that it should be exempted from paying the demurrage charges and a mandamus should issue to the Customs Department to pay the demurrage charges has to be rejected.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

M/S.Austin Engineering Co.Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Customs (Exports) on 18 September, 2009

22. The Supreme Court, in Shipping Corporation of India v. C.L.Jain Woolen Mills, 2001 (129) ELT 561 (SC), has held that when the goods are wrongly detained by the Customs authorities, they are liable to pay the demurrage charges to the Port Trust authorities and, thereafter, the Port Trust authorities may consider for waiver of demurrage charges, if the Department makes an application.
Madras High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - V Dhanapalan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next