JSW STEEL LTD. versus THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE MUMBAI PORT TRUST MUMBAI & ORS.

Citation: [2025] 2 S.C.R. 701 · Decided: 13-02-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 2 S.C.R. 701 : 2025 INSC 257
JSW Steel Ltd. 
v. 
The Board of Trustees of the Mumbai Port Trust  
Mumbai & Ors. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3169 of 2025)
14 February 2025
[Ahsanuddin Amanullah* and  
Prashant Kumar Mishra,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by 
the High Court by which it allowed respondent no.1 to withdraw 
the amount deposited in the court by the appellant and disposed 
of the writ petition as being infructuous.
Headnotes†
Ports Act, 1908 – s.14 – Raising or removal of wreck 
impeding navigation within limits of port – Appellant called 
upon to deposit a sum of Rs.70 lakhs for removal of wreck 
of a barge belonging to respondent no.3 which capsized 
while ferrying iron ore from the ship of the appellant to the 
port concerned – Writ petition by the appellant praying for 
prohibiting the respondents from insisting upon the appellant 
to remove the wreck of the barge and to deposit any amount 
as costs of such wreck – Case of the appellant that the Act 
places liability on the owner of the vessel concerned and, 
the owner of the vessel was respondent no.3 and not the 
appellant – High Court allowed respondent no.1-Mumbai Port 
Trust to withdraw the amount deposited in the court by the 
appellant and disposed of the petition as being infructuous – 
Sustainability: 
Held: Not sustainable – The way the High Court approached the 
issue appears to be erroneous since the lis was very much alive, 
as a pure question of law stood raised was on whom the liability 
for clearing the wreckage was to be fastened – Impugned order 
did not deal with this fundamental issue – When on a purely legal 
issue, the appellant raised a legal objection, and also deposited the 
* Author
702
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
amount demanded by respondent no.1 in the High Court, the High 
Court was required to answer the question of law – No exercise 
was required involving disputed factual questions – Efflux of time 
is a result of systemic delay, not due to any laches on the part 
of the appellant – Impugned order set aside – Matter remanded 
back to High Court to dispose it expeditiously – Constitution of 
India – Art. 226. [Paras 6-9]
Case Law Cited
Tirupati Balaji Developers (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar [2004] Supp. 
1 SCR 494 : (2004) 5 SCC 1; B S Hari Commandant v. Union of 
India [2023] 3 SCR 431 : (2023) 13 SCC 779; Union Territory of 
Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference [2023] 12 
SCR 68 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1140 – relied on.
List of Acts
Ports Act, 1908.
List of Keywords
Wreck of barge; Removal of wreck; Capsized barge; Deputy 
conservator; Owner of the vessel; Liability for the wreckage; Writ 
petition becoming infructuous; Pure question of law; Efflux of time; 
Systematic delay.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3169 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.08.2021 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Bombay in WP No. 2127 of 1996
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv., Mahesh Agarwal, Rishi Agrawala,  
Ms. Aanchal Mullick, Ms. Kamakshi Sehgal, Rohan Sharma,  
E. C. Agrawala.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Abhishek Puri, Ms. Surbhi Gupta, Sahil Grewal, Mrs. Reeta Dewan 
Puri, P. N. Puri, Apoorv Shukla, Puneet Chahar, Ms. Prabhleen 
A. Shukla.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 
703
JSW Steel Ltd. v.  
The Board of Trustees of the Mumbai Port Trust Mumbai & Ors.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.
Leave granted. Heard learned senior counsel/counsel for the parties.
BACKGROUND:
2.	
The appellant is aggrieved by the Impugned Order, by which Writ 
Petition No.2127/1996 filed by it before the High Court was disposed 
of. The High Court noted that the said writ petition principally sought 
the following reliefs:
‘(a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ 
of prohibition or a writ in the nature of prohibition or any 
other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 
of the Constitution of India, prohibiting the Respondents 
from insisting upon the Petitioners to remove the wreck of 
SATYAM or take any steps in that behalf and/or to deposit 
any amounts as costs of such wreck removal; 
(b) For a permanent injunction restraining the Respondents, 
their servants and agents from taking any steps against the 
Petitioners and preventing the Petitioners from availing of 
the services of the Mumbai Port Trust and its waters for the 
pur

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