BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF CALCUTTA AND ANR. versus BOMBAY FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 418 · Decided: 07-10-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF 
CALCUTTA AND ANR. 
v. 
BOMBAY FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 7, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908---Section 21>-Tenitorial Jurisdictiorr-Suit 
for mandatory injunction to release goods-Consignment imported at Port of 
C Calcutta and unloaded at Netaji Subhas Docks--Failure to clear goods--
Appellant's office is at Ca/cutter-Held : Only Court competent to take cog-
nizance is court at Calcutta. 
The respondent had consignment of Rolling Mills imported at the 
Port of Calcntta and got unloaded at Docks of the appellants. The respon-
D dent was required to obtain delivery of the goods as per the prescribed 
Scale of Rates but he failed to have them cleared after making payment of 
demurrage. The respondent approached the District Court at Bharatpur, 
Rajasthan and obtained an ex-parte mandatory injunction directing the 
appellant to release the goods. Appeal filed against the order was dis-
E missed by the High Court. 
F 
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Rajasthan 
High Court. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The cause of action had arisen at Calcutta when the goods 
were imported and they were unloaded at Netaji Subhas Docks of the 
appellants and the liability of payment had also arisen and on itS failure 
to clear the goods the respondent instituted the suit in Rajasthan. No part 
of cause of action arose in Rajasthan. The appellant's office is at Calcutta. 
G Under Section 20 Civil Procedure Code, the only court competent to take 
cognizance of the action is the appropriate Court at Calcutta. The order 
passed by the District Court, Bharatpur in the suit filed by the respondent, 
is without jurisdiction and is void. When the appellant, approached the 
HighCourt, it has dismissed the case. Therefore the High Court has 
H committed manifest error of law on refusing to interfere with such an 
418 
TRUSTEES PORT OF CALCUTTA v. BOMBAY FLOUR MILLS (P) LID.419 
obviously illegal and void order. Therefore, the impugned order passed by A 
the High Court and District Court are set aside. [420-B-D] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7382 of 
1994. 
From the Judgment and Orders dated 7th February 1994 of the High B 
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench at Jaipur in D.B. Civil 
Special Appeal (Writ) No. 409 of 1992. 
Shankar Ghosh, G. John, H.S. Parihar and G. Kandpal for the 
Appellants. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Pursuant to the Order passed by this Court on September 5, 1994 
c 
the appellant had taken substituted service, and served respondents by 
publishing 'Court Notice' in Hindustan Times Newspaper, New Delhi, D 
Monday dated 19th September, 1994 (Annexure B) at page 115. Although 
nobody appears for the respondents, notice must be deemed to have been 
served on the respondents. 
Leave granted. 
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of Division Bench 
of the Rajasthan High Court dated 7.2.1994 made in Civil Appeal (Writ) 
No. 409 of 1992. 
E 
The respondent had consignment of Rolling Mills in 63 cases, im-
ported at the Port of Calcutta in October 1988 and got unloaded at No. 3 F 
shed, Netaji Subhas Docks of the appellants between October 11 to 17, 
1988. The respondent No.1 was required to obtain delivery of the goods as 
per the prescribed Scale of Rates but he failed to have them cleared after 
making payment of demurrage. He made a representation on March 27, 
1989 requesting the appellants to waive the port charges and release the 
goods. Since the appellant refused to do so, on April 18, 1989, the respon-
G 
dent approached the District Court at Bharatpur, Rajasthan and obtained 
an ex parte ad-interim mandatory injunction on 22nd April, 1989 directing 
the appellant to release the goods within two days on payment of the sum 
of Rs. 2,26,674.00 (Two lacs twenty six thousand, six hundred and seventy 
four only) being made while the respondent was due in a sum of Rs. H 
420 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994} SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
7,37,400 to the appellant. When the appellant approached the High Court 
of Rajastahn by way of Civil Appeal (Writ), the High Court dismissed the 
same. 
It is seen that the cause of action had arisen at Calcutta when the 
goods were imported and they were unloaded at Shed No. 3, Netaji Subhas 
B Docks of the appellant and the liability of payment had also arisen and on 
its failure to clear the goods the responden

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.