THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF BOMBAY AND ORS versus M/S SRIYANESH KNITTERS

Citation: [1999] 3 S.C.R. 1238 · Decided: 30-07-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. KIRPAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF 
BOMBAY AND ORS. 
v. 
MIS SRIY ANESH KNITTERS 
JULY 30, 1999 
[B.N. KIRPAL AND U.C. BANERJEE, J.J.) 
Major 
Port 
Trusts 
Act, 
1963-Sections 
2(o), 
29(2), 
42,43,45,47,48,59,6J,68,70,71,/26,13/-Board refusing to release goods 
· C imported by the respondents and demanding payment in respect of wharf age 
and demurrage due from the respondents in respect of earlier consignments 
imported by them on the basis of a Circular-Tenability of-Held, fhe,Board 
being a wharfinger, can have a general lien under Section 171 of; ihe 
Contract Act and retain the goods bailed to it for any amount due in respect 
D thereof-Expression "general balance of account" occurring in Section 17 I 
cannot be given a restricted meaning to mean only wharfage charges and 
not including demurrage-Once the goods are taken charge of by the Board 
as a wharfinger, in respect of the services rendered, any amount due and 
payable would be regarded as "general balance of account" in respect of 
which it has a general lien over the goods bailed to it-Circular issued· by 
E the Board, upheld-Indian Contract Act, 1872-Sections 151, 152, 16/, 17/. 
Boai-d claiming general lien relying on the provisions of Section I 7 I 
of the Contract Act as the Major Port Trusts Act did not provfde for such 
general lien-Permissibility of-Held the general lien of the type claimed by 
the appellants in respect of the past dues, not being provided for by the 
F Major Port Trusts Act, it is permissible for the Board to rely on the provisions 
of Section 171-Major Port Trusts Act not being an exhaustive and 
comprehensive code, the said Act has to be read .together with other Acts 
whenever it is silent in respect of any matter-The enactment of Major Port 
Trusts Act does not ipso facto exclude the operation of other laws which may 
G be applicable. 
lien-Specific and General-Differentiation in-Held, with regard to 
the current dues in respect of existing goods in their possession, the Board 
not only has a lien under the Major Port Trusts Act but it also has the power 
to sell the said goods and realise its dues-Before selling the goods as 
H provided for, no order of any Court or other judicial authority is required-
1238 
-
•
., 
._
' 
·-
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF BOMBAY v. S. KNITTERS 
1239 
On the other hand, the general lien contemplated under the Contract Act A 
only enables the retention the retention of the bailed goods as security and 
does not give any power to sell the goods-The wharfinger in such a case 
will have to take recourse to other proceedings in accordance with law for 
securing an order which would then enable the goods to be sold for realisation 
of the amounts due to it. 
B 
Bailor and bailee-Relationship of-The contract in a bill of lading 
being between the Port Trust and the holder of bill of lading (i.e), the 
consignee in this case, it is the consignee which is the bailor and the Port 
Trust the bailee-High Court erred in holding that the contract in a bill of 
lading was between the ship owner and the Port Trust-Port of Bombay C 
(Responsibility of Goods) Regulations, 1975-Bill of Lading Act, 1856-
Section 1. 
Words and Phrases-Wharfinger-Meaning of 
Respondents were the importers who imported various goods from time D 
to time. They imported various consignments of woollen rags over a period 
of time. After the arrival of these consignments at the port, a dispute arose 
between the respondents and the customs authorities. During this period, the 
imported goods remained at the docks till the order of confiscation was 
passed and goods confiscated by the Customs authorities. In respect of the 
period during which the goods remained at the docks, the appellant issued E 
notices to the respondents demanding demurrage charges, which liability 
was denied by the respondents. 
Subsequently, acrylic fibre was imported by the respondents. However, 
these goods were not released by the Port Trust as it demanded payment in F 
respect of wharfage and demurrage which was due from these respondents 
in respect of earlier consignments of woollen rags which had been imported 
by them. Such refusal to release the goods was on the basis of a Circular 
issued by the appellant. 
The respondents then filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking G 
a declaration that the aforesaid Circular was ultra vires of the Major Port 
Trusts Act, 1963 and was violative of Articles 14,19,265 and 300A of the 
Constitution
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.