THE TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF MADRAS BY ITS CHAIRMAN versus K. P. V. SHEIK MOHAMED ROWTHER & CO. AND OTHERS

Citation: [1963] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 915 · Decided: 11-12-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.K. DAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
915 
THE TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF 
MADRAS BY ITS CHAIRMAN 
v. 
K. P. V. SHEIK MOHAMED ROWTHER 
& CO. AND OTHERS 
(S. K. DAS, J. L. KAPUR, A. K. SARKAR, 
M. HIDAYATULLAH and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, jj.) 
Port Trust-Charges to be levied. on steamer agents-Labour 
supplied by Port Trust not fully or properly utilised-Rate of 
chargea-Liability of consignee-Madras Port Trust 
Scale of 
Rates, 'E' scale-Madras Port Trust Act, 1905 (Mad. 2 of 1905) 
88. 39, 40, 42. 
In exercise of the powers under s. 42 of the Madras Port 
Trust Act, 1905, the Tru•tees of the Port of Mardas, the 
appellants, made amendments to the Madras Port Trust Scale 
of Rates in 1958. By the amendment, Scale •E' was added 
under Ch. V and it was to come into force from March 1, 
1958. The scale laid down charges to be paid by Masters, 
Owners or Agents of vessels in respect of Port Trust labour 
requisitioned and supplied but not fully or properly utilised. 
These charges were to be on account of the labour of the Port 
Trust rendered idle on account of some lapse on the part of the 
ship owners or on account of extra payment to labour for the 
simultaneous working of more than one hook at the vessel's 
hatch. The labour requisition Form to be submitted by the 
steamer-agents was also modified and the new form contained 
an undertaking on the part of the steamer-agents for the pay-
ment of the charges laid down in Port Trust's scale of rates 
from time to time in respect of Jabour rendered idle or not 
properly utilised and also for working more than one hook 
simultaneously at the hatch. The respondents, the steamer-
agcnts, filed petitions before the High Court ot Madras under 
Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a direction 
to the Port Trust not to enforce these rates and not to require 
the filling in of the new form, on the grounds, inter alia, (I) 
that the ship-owners and the steamer-agents could not be made 
liable for charges for short Jabour employed in the receiving or 
removal of cargo and such charges must be borne by the 
consignee, (2) the Port Trust had power to impose and recover 
rates only for services rendered and that they had no right to 
jmp<>Se charges by way of compensation for default or to collect 
1962 
D1"mhlr, JI. 
• 
'
,,-·. 
\ 
\<. 
1002 
The Trust us of 
t!u Porl of Ma.tiras 
v. 
K.P.Y. SJui!; Mohd. 
Rowthn fl Co. 
.-~ 
-·-·--- ,- ·-~--~ 
916: SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. 
charges from l\.fasters, O\vners or Agents of vessels in respect of 
operations not . properly falling under the head of discharge of 
"cargo from the vessel, (3) the compulsion imposed on steamer 
agents in the matter of the scale •E' rates and in respect of the 
signing of the requisition for shore labour \Va'I 
outsid~ the 
- authority conferred by law and was illegal, and (4) such imposi· 
tion --,vhether ·as charges for services or as compensation for 
default of steamer agents was an unreasonable restriction on the 
fundamental right of the petitioners to carry on business as 
steamer-agents a~d Was inoperative in law. 
_ Held : (I) The object. behind the scale •E' rates was to 
expedite the discharge of the cargo at the quay and thus to 
enable a quantity of cargo to be discharged quickly. The 
services rende1ed by the Port Trust were therefore services to 
the ship and, consequently, charges_ for them could be validity 
realised from the steamer-agents. 
-
-(2) The Madras Port Trust Act, 1905, did not contain 
any provision \vhich \Vould constitute -the Port Tru~t an agent 
of the consignee for the purpo;e of the taking delivery of the 
- goods and the expression "receiving" in cl. (b) of sub-s. (I) of 
s. 39 of the Act did not mean receiving the goods on behalf of 
the C'onsignee. 
(3) Under ss. 39 and 40 the Port Trust took charge of 
the goods on behalf of the ship-owner and not on behalf of the 
consignee, and whatever ·services it performed at the time of 
-- --the landing of the goods -or on their removal thereafter, were 
services rendered to the ship. 
-
-- (4) The impugned charges were rightly levied by 
scale •E' on the Master, Owner or Agent of the vessels and that 
the Port Trust could validly insist on the steamer-agent requisi-
tioning the shore-labour to express an undertaking in the form 
for requisitioning labour that he \vould p.iy the charges laid 
clown in the Port Trust's scale of rates from time to time in 
respect of labour rendered idle or not properly utilised and also 
·f

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