FORBES FORBES CAMPBELL & CO. LTD. versus BOARD OF TRUSTEES, PORT OF BOMBAY

Citation: [2014] 12 S.C.R. 337 · Decided: 03-12-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 12 S.C.R. 337 
FORBES FORBES CAMPBELL & CO. LTD. 
v. 
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, PORT OF BOMBAY 
(Civil Appeal No. 2134 of 2006) 
DECEMBER 03, .2014 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Major Port Trust Act, 1963 - s.42, 2(o), 40, 43, 60 -
Goods brought into the port and warehoused by the Port Trust 
Authority - Consignee of the goods not attempted to clear bill C 
of lading and also not responded to the notices issued -
Payment of demurrage and port charges to the Board of 
Trustees of a Port - Held: Agent of the ship owner liable to 
pay demurrage and port charges. 
D 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: Once the bill of lading is endorsed or the 
delivery order is issued it is the consignee or endorsee 
who would be liable to pay the demurrage charges and 
. 
other dues of the Port Trust authority. In all other . E 
situations the contract of bailment is one between the 
Steamer Agent (bailor) and the Port Trust Authority 
(bailee) giving rise to the liability of the Steamer Agent for 
such charges till such time that the bill of lading is 
endorsed or delivery order is issued by the Steamer 
F 
Agent. Sections 61 and 62 of the major Port Trusts 
Act,1963 enables the Port Trust authority to proceed 
against the goods within its custody to recover the 
charges which may be payable to the Port Trust authority. 
Ordinarily and in the normal ::ourse if resort is made to G 
the enabling provisions in the Act of 1963 to proceed 
against the goods for recovery of the charges payable to 
the Port Trust authority there may not be any occasion 
for the said authority to sustain any loss or even suffer 
337 
H 
338 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 12 S.C.R. 
A any shortfall. of the dues payable to it so as to initiate 
recovery proceedings against the ship owners. On facts, 
the orders of the High Court are upheld. [Para 11, 12] 
[345-B-H] 
B 
Trustees of the Port of Madras Through Its Chairman Vs. 
K.P. V. Sheikh Mohd. Rowther & Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Another 
(1997) 10 SCC 285; Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay 
and Others Vs. Sriyanesh Knitters 1999 (3) SCR 1238:(1999) 
7 SCC 359; The Trustees of the Port of Madras by Its 
Chairman Vs. K.P. V. Sheik Mohamed Rowther & Co. and 
C Others (1963) Supp. 2 SCR 915 - referred to. 
D 
E 
Ca.se Law Reference: 
(1997) 10 sec 285 
1999 (3) SCR 1238 
Referred to 
Referred to 
(1963) Supp. 2 SCR ~15 
Referred to 
Para 3 
Para 6 
Para 8 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
2134 of 2006. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 16.12.2005 of the High 
Court of Bombay at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1732 of 1990. 
WITH 
F 
C.A. Nos. 7088, 7092 & 7094 of 2002, 802 of 2005, 10719 of 
2014. 
S.K. Bagaria, T.R. And~yarujina, Parag P. Tripathi Atul 
Yeshwant Chitale, Vikas Mehta, V.K. Ramabhadran, Siddharth 
G Kaushik, K. Ajit Singh, Srinivas Vijay Kumar, Amitava 
Majumdar, Siddharth Dave, Aditya Krishnamurthy, Jemtiben, 
Senthil Jagadeesan, Priya Puri, Sandeep Narain, S.K. Das, 
Ashok Bannidinni, S. Narain & Co., Aniruddha Deshmukh, 
Mohit D. Ram, A.V. Rangam, Buddy A. Rang~nathan, Soumik 
H Ghoshal, Nirnimesh Dube, Shubham Jaiswal, Vaishnavi Rao, 
FORBES FORBES CAMPBELL & CO. LTD. v. BOARD OF 339 
TRUSTEES, PORT OF BOMBAY 
Shalini Kumar, B. Krishna Prasad, Indra Sawhney, C.V. Subba A 
Rao, B.V. Balaram Das, Ritin Rai, V.K. Monga, Fereshte D. 
Sethna, Sukhmani, B. Vijayalakshmi Menon for the appearing 
parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RANJAN GOGOi, J. 1. Leave granted· in· SLP(C) No. 
4221 of 2012. 
B 
2. The common question of law that arises in these 
appeals, though in different facts and circumstances, is with c 
regard to the liability of the agent of a ship owner (hereinafter 
referred to as the "Steamer Agent") to pay demurrage and port 
charges to the Board of Trustees of a Port (hereinafter referred 
to as "the Port Trust Authority") in respect of goods brought into 
the port and warehoused by the said authority. Before 0 
proceeding to answer the aforesaid question it will be 
convenient to take note of the core facts in each of the appeals 
under .consideration. 
Civil Appeal No. 2134/2006 and Civil Appeal arising out of 
SLP(C) No. 4221/2012 
E 
3. The consignee of the goods not having either cleared 
the same or having responded to any of the notices issued, the 
goods were sold by public auction by the Port Trust authority 
after almost four years of receipt thereof. The amount fetched 
F 
in the auction fell short of the total charges payable
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.