THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEES, COCHIN PORT TRUST versus M/S AREBEE STAR MARITIME AGENCIES PVT. LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 11 S.C.R. 706 · Decided: 05-08-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN, NAVIN SINHA, INDIRA BANERJEE · Disposal: Reference answered

cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
706
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 11 S.C.R.
THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEES,
COCHIN PORT TRUST
v.
M/S AREBEE STAR MARITIME AGENCIES
PVT. LTD. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2525 of 2018)
AUGUST 05, 2020
[R. F. NARIMAN, NAVIN SINHA AND
INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 – Scheme of the Act – ss.2, 42,
43, 48, 59-65, 123, 131  – Goods not cleared by consignee –
Payment of storage/demurrage charges – Liability of – High Court
while deciding on limited question as to extent of liability of shipping
agents beyond 75 days mentioned in relevant TAMP (Tariff Authority
for Major Ports) Orders inter alia held that Port Trust can demand
Ground Rent only to a maximum period of 75 days –Liability for
payment of charges to Port Trust – Inconsistency in judgments
(Rowther-II, Sriyanesh Knitters, Forbes-II and Rasiklal) delivered after
Constitution Bench judgment in Rowther-I – Reference to larger
bench – Held: Point of time at which title to the goods passes to the
consignee is not relevant to determine the liability of the consignee
or steamer agent in respect of charges to be paid to the Port Trust –
Bill of lading endorsed by the steamer agent is different from the
bill of lading endorsed by the owner of the goods – Both stages are
irrelevant in determining who is to pay storage charges –Upto the
point that the Port Trust takes charge of the goods, and gives receipt
therefor, the steamer agent may be held liable for Port Trust dues
w.r.t services rendered qua unloading of goods, but thereafter, the
importer, owner, consignee or their agent is liable to pay demurrage
charges for storage of goods – Until the stage of landing and
removal to a place of storage, the steamer’s agent or the vessel
itself may be made liable for rates payable by the vessel – When the
Port Trust takes charge of the goods from the vessel, or from any
other person who can be said to be owner as defined u/s.2(o), it is
only the owner of the goods or other persons entitled to the goods
(who may be beneficially entitled as well) that the Port Trust has to
[2020] 11 S.C.R. 706
706
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
707
look to for payment of storage or demurrage charges – Further, it
would be the duty of Port Trust to destuff every container entrusted
to it, and return destuffed containers to any such person within as
short a period as feasible where the owner/person entitled to the
goods does not come forward to take delivery of the goods and
destuff such containers – On facts, steamer agents themselves did
not dispute liability to pay ground rent upto 75 days and paid the
same – They even paid it beyond 75 days – Further, expression
“may” in ss.61, 62 cannot be read as “shall”, subject to the caveat
that as the “State” u/Art.12, a Port Trust must act reasonably, and
attempt to sell the goods within a reasonable period from the date
on which it assumed custody of them – Impugned judgment set aside
only on aforesaid question of law – Customs Act, 1962 – ss.2(23),
(26); 29, 30, 33, 45(1), 46(1), (2), 48, 49, 150 – Maxims – noscitur
a sociis – Bill of Entry (Forms) Regulations, 1976 – Customs
Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007
– rr.2(1)(d), (f), 4, 5, 10(1)(a)(ii) – Customs Tariff Act, 1975 – s.2 –
Indian Bills of Lading Act, 1856 – s.1 – Contract Act, 1872 – s.148,
151, 152, 158, 161 – Constitution of India – Arts.12, 14.
Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 – s.2(o) – “owner” – Held: When
s.2(o) defines “owner”, it defines owner in relation to goods
separately from owner in relation to any vessel – In s.2(o)(i), when
owner is defined in relation to “goods”, the definition is an inclusive
one – Secondly, it includes persons who are owners of the goods,
or persons beneficially entitled to the goods, such as the consignor,
consignee and the shipper and then also includes agents for sale,
custody, loading or unloading of such goods.
Maxims – noscitur a sociis – When not applicable– Held: As
the definition of “owner” is inclusive, the non-mention of the ship-
owner in the first part of the definition makes no difference – It
would be incongruous that the shipowner’s agent is included in the
latter part of the definition, but not the ship-owner itself, which
would indicate that the maxim noscitur a sociis cannot apply – Major
Port Trusts Act, 1963 – s.2(o).
Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 – ss.42(3), (5), (6) – Held:
ss.42(5) and (6) have no application to the Board, as they apply
only to the “person” authorised u/s.42(3) by the Board to perform

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