ivil Appeal No 2912 of 1986
From the Judgment and Order dated 1485 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No 262 of 1985
JP Cama and Mukul Mudgal for the Appellant
VN Ganpule for the Respondents The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH J
The appellant is Ms Isha Steel Treatment Bombay A firm carrying on the business of metal processing ie heat treatment of metals
In the year 1963 it established a factory hereinafter referred to as the I Unit  for the purpose of carrying on the business of metal processing with about 32 workmen
Nearly 12 years after the establishment of the I Unit it established a second factory hereinafter referred to as the II Unit  for carrying on the same kind of business employing about 75 workmen about 200 yards 418 away from the I Unit
Both the units had independent loca tion separate factory licences and separate municipal licences
The said two units also had separate stores and maintained separate accounts and balance sheets
The workmen of both the units were also employed independently and there was a separate muster roll in respect of each of the two units
There was no rule or condition regarding the inter transferability of the workmen
On finding that the workmen of the I Unit were wilfully slacking their work and that there was growing indiscipline among them the appellant decided in the year 1981 82 to reduce the three shifts working previously to two shifts
The indiscipline and the lack of production continued and on it becoming impossible for the appellant to carry on with even the aforesaid two shifts as reduced the appellant came to the unhappy conclu sion that it had no alternative but to close down the I Unit altogether
The aforesaid closure of the I Unit set up in 1963 took effect on 15121982 and closure compensation was offered to the entire staff of the 32 workmen
The workmen of the I Unit raised through their Union namely Associa tion of Engineering Workers Bombay an industrial dispute before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour Conciliation Bombay District Office Bombay who in exercise of the powers delegated to him under clause d of sub section 1 of section 10 read with section 125 of the hereinafter referred to as the Act  referred to Shri BL Borude Industrial Tribunal Maharash tra Bombay the dispute between the appellant and the work men employed in the I Unit over the demand for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service with effect from 152 1982
The said reference was registered as Refer ence IT No 218 of 1982 before the Tribunal
In the statement of claim filed by the workmen it was urged that the two units which were being run by the appel lant had functional integrality and were for all purposes parts of the establishment and that the workmen were mutual ly transferable from one unit to the other
It was further stated that the workmen were originally members of Mazdoor Congress which according to them could not improve their service conditions
Therefore they decided to join another union namely the Association of Engineering Workers and were canvassing amongst themselves for organising under the banner of the Association of Engineering Workers
They further pleaded that on the management coming to know about it it tried to persuade the workers not to join the said Association
On the workmen not agreeing to the suggestion made by the management the management in an attempt to retaliate against the move of the workmen removed 22 work men on 419 152
1982 alleging that the I Unit was making a loss that the workmen had resorted to giving less production that there was indiscipline in the 1 Unit and therefore the management was closing down the said unit
The workmen pleaded that the action of the management was arbitrary and was a colourable exercise of the management s power of closure
It was alleged that the impugned action was by way of victimisation for the trade union activities of the said workmen
They claimed that the principle of last come first go  while terminating the services of the workmen having not been followed as required by section 25 G of the Act the termination was illegal
The appellant resisted the claim made by the workmen
It pleaded inter alia that the closure of the I Unit was due to the non co operation and indiscipline on the part of the workmen that the two units were independent of each other and there was no functional integrality between them
The management denied that there was any rule or service condition permitting transfer of workmen from one factory to another
The management stated that it was always willing to pay the compensation payable on closure to the workmen concerned and that section 25 G of the Act was inapplicable to the case
After recording the evidence tendered by the parties and hearing the arguments urged on their behalf the Tribunal held that the two units were independent of each other there was no common seniori ty list of the workmen of the two units and there was no rule or practice of transferring workmen from one factory to the other
The Tribunal rejected the case of the workmen that the closure was in retaliation to the trade union activities of workmen
It also found that there was no victimisation of the workmen and the workmen concerned were not entitled to be reinstated as the closure of the I Unit had become legally effective from 152
Accordingly it rejected the demand made by the workmen by its Award dated September 6 1983
Aggrieved by the Award passed by the Tribunal the workmen filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Bombay challenging the legality of the Award
The learned Single Judge before whom the writ petition came up for considera tion reversed the Award of the Tribunal and remanded the proceedings back to the Tribunal for afresh disposal
By the time the decision was rendered there were only 14 workmen who were interested in the dispute
The learned Single Judge therefore directed the Tribunal to consider whether the termination of services of any of the 14 workmen whose claim for reinstatement still subsisted was done in viola tion of the principles laid down under section 25 G of the Act
The learned Single Judge also directed the Tribunal to determine whether the workmen were entitled to reinstatement and if the Tribunal found that they were entitled to such reinstatement the 420 question as to the grant of back wages should also be con sidered by it
It should be stated here that the learned Single Judge made it clear that the finding of the Tribunal that the Association of workmen had failed to establish that the services of the workmen were terminated because of their joining the petitioner union  was not disturbed
The learned Single Judge however found that there was func tional integrality between the two units and in that connec tion observed thus In my judgment the fact that the two units are situate within a distance of 200 meters the fact that both the units are controlled by the same employer and the fact that the busi ness of heat treatment process carried on in the two units was identical it leaves no manner of doubt that the two units were really integral and were known separately only be cause the business in the two units commenced on different dates
In my judgment the find ing recorded by the Tribunal that the two units were separate and independent is clearly erroneous and cannot be sustained
 With these observations the learned Single Judge set aside the finding recorded by the Tribunal to the effect that the two units were independent and separate and held that they were one and the same
In view of his finding the learned Single Judge held that section 25 G of the Act was applicable
He accordingly set aside the Award and remanded the case to the Tribunal with the directions already set out above
Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge the appellant preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court
That appeal was dismissed with the obser vation that the finding of the learned Single Judge that the two units had functional integrality was correct and the remitting of the matter to the Tribunal was in order
This appeal by special leave is filed against the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court
It is not disputed before us that after 152
1982 when the work in the I Unit was completely stopped no work is being carried on in the premises where the I Unit had been established
It is also not disputed that the II Unit has been working as usual and the stoppage of the work in the I Unit had no effect on the work of the II Unit
The finding recorded by the Tribunal that the management had not closed down the I Unit by way of retaliation to the alleged trade union activities of the workmen of the I Unit has not been shown to be untenable
It is 421 also seen that the findings of the Tribunal that the two units had been established in two different places although at a distance of about 200 yards from each other that the muster rolls of the two units were separate that the two units had separate factory licences and municipal licences that the balance sheets of the two units were separate and that there was no rule or condition of service that the workmen were transferable from one unit to the other are not set aside by the learned Single Judge
It is true that in the course of the evidence of one of the witnesses for the management it had been brought out that the name of workman Kishore Ram of the 1 Unit had been by mistake entered in the Muster Roll of the II Unit in October 1980 and it had been scored out
This was a stray case
There was no evidence in the case showing that Kishore Ram had actually worked in the II Unit
Neither Kishore Ram nor anybody else had been examined to give evidence in support of the said fact
On a consideration of the entire evidence including the fact that there was no common seniority list of workmen of the two units and the fact that the name of Kishore Ram had been entered in the Muster Roll of the II Unit in October 1980 and that it had been scored out the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the workmen of the two units were not trans ferable from one unit to the other
The first question which arises for consideration in this case is whether the two units should be treated as having functional integrality
In the Workmen of the Straw Board Manufacturing Company Limited vs Ms Straw Board Manufacturing Company Limited this Court had occasion to consider a similar question
At page 507 this Court considered the above question as follows 20
After giving due consideration to all the aspects pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants we are unable to hold that the R Mill is not an independently functioning unit and that there is any func tional integrality as such between the R Mill and the section Mill
The fact of the unity of ownership supervision and control and some other common features which we have noticed above do not justify a contrary conclusion on this aspect in the present case
There is considerable force in the submission of Mr Chitaley that the R Mill is a different line of business and the closure of the section Mill has nothing to do with the functioning of the R Mill
The matter may be absolutely different when in an otherwise going concern or a func tioning unit some workmen s services are 422 terminated as being redundant or surplus to requirements
That most of the conditions of service of the two mills were substantially identical can be easily explained by the fact that being owned by the same employer and the two units being situated in close proximity it will not be in the interest of the manage ment and peace and wellbeing of the company to treat the employees different creating heart burning and discrimination
For the same reason there is no particular significance in this case even in the application of the standing orders of the company to the employ ees of the R Mill which because of the non requisite number of employees employed in the latter is not even required under the law to have separate standing orders
It is in our opinion a clear case of closure of an inde pendent unit of a company and not a closure of a part of an establishment
 In the above decision this Court has held that the unity of ownership supervision and control that existed in re spect of the two mills involved in that case and the fact that the conditions of the service of the workmen of the two mills were substantially indentical were not by themselves sufficient in the eye of law to hold that there was func tional integrality between the two mills
It held that it was a clear case of closure of an independent unit and not of a part of an establishment
The decision of the learned Single Judge of the High Court that the fact that the two units were situate in a distance of 200 meters the fact that both the units were controlled by the same employer and that the business of heat treatment processing carried on in the two units was identical had left no room for doubt that the two units were really integral cannot be sustained
The decision in SG Chemicals and Dyes Trading Employees  Union vs SG Chemicals and Dyes Trading Limited and Another  is not of much assistance to the work men
The management in that case was running its business in pharmaceuticals at three places
The Pharmaceutical Division was at Worli the Laboratory and Dyes Division was at Trom bay and the Marketing and Sales Division was at Churchgate
In 1984 the company which was managing the said three divi sions of business was sold out
As the buyers proposed to handle the future sales of the Company through their own distribution channels they found that the services of the staff working at the Churchgate office were no longer re quired
Therefore the management closed down the office at Churchgate
The question was whether there was functional integrality between the office at the Churchgate and the factory at Trombay
This Court on a 423 consideration of the material before it in that case held that the functions of the Churchgate division and the Trom bay factory were neither separate nor independent but were so integrally connected as to constitute the Churchgate and the Trombay factory into one establishment because the Churchgate division used to purchase the raw material re quired by the Trombay factory for producing or processing the goods
it used to market and sell the goods so manufac tured or processed by that factory and it also used to disburse the salary and other employment benefits and main tain accounts etc
of the workmen
These were considered to be integral parts of the manufacturing activities of the factory at Trombay because the factory could never have functioned independently without the Churchgate division being there
It is not the case of the workmen in the present case that the II Unit could not continue to function after the closure of the I Unit
As already mentioned the II Unit is continuing to function as usual even now notwith standing the stoppage of the activities at the I Unit
The question of application of section 25 G of the Act arises only when the services of the workmen are retrenched
In Santosh Gupta vs State Bank of Patiala  it is laid down that if the termination of service of a workman in a given case falls either under section 25 FF or under section 25 FFF of the Act it would not be a termina tion falling under section 25 F of the Act
This Court has observed in that case that after the enactment of section 25 FF and section 25 FFF retrenchment included every kind of termination of service except those not expressly included in section 25 F or not expressly provided for by other provisions of the Act such as sections 25 FF and 25 FFF
Hence if the case is one of genuine closure then the ques tion of applying section 25 G of the Act which is applicable to a case of retrenchment would not arise
It is not necessary that in order to effect closure of business the management should close down all the branches of its business
In Management of Hindustan Steel Ltd vs The Workmen  Others  this Court has held that the word undertaking  used in section 25 FFF seems to have been used in its ordinary sense connoting thereby any work enterprise project or business undertak ing
It is not intended to cover the entire industry or business of he employer
Even the closure or stoppage of a part of the business or activities of the employer would seem in law to be covered by the said provision
In deciding the above case this Court relied upon its earlier decision in Workmen of the Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Company Limited Guntur vs Management of the Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Co Ltd Guntur  In that case the Court 424 observed that a genuine closure of depots or branches even though it did not amount to closure of the business could not be interfered with by an Industrial Tribunal
It further held that the closure was stoppage of part of the activity or business of the management and such stoppage is an act of management which is entirely in the discretion of the man agement
The Court further observed that no Industrial Tribunal could interfere with the discretion exercised in such a matter
It was however argued in this case on behalf of the workmen that since the Provident Fund accounts of the em ployees and the Employees  State Insurance accounts of the two units had common numbers with the authorities concerned and settlements containing similar terms copies which are not produced before us had been entered into in 1974 be tween the management and the workmen of the two units it should be held that the two units had functional integrality between them
We are of the view that even these factors are not sufficient to hold that the two units were one and the same notwithstanding the fact that the nature of the busi ness carried on in them was the same
In Indian Cable Co Ltd vs Its Workmen this Court has held that the fact that the balance sheet was prepared incorpo rating the trading results of all the branches or that the employees of the various branches were treated alike for the purpose of provident fund gratuity bonus and for condi tions of service in general could not lead to the conclu sion that all the branches should be treated as one unit for purposes of section 25 G of the Act
On a consideration of the entire material before it the Tribunal had reached the conclusion that the closure of the I Unit was bona fide that it did not have any functional integrality with the II Unit and that there was no victimi sation of workmen for their trade union activities
On going through the Award passed by the Tribunal we feel that it had not committed any error in recording the said findings which called for interference at the hands of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
We are satisfied that this case is one of bona fide closure of an independent unit of business
The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court were therefore in error in hold ing that the termination of service of the workmen in this case amounted to retrenchment and not closure and the case of the workmen had to be considered on remand by the Tribu nal in the light of section 25 G of the Act
They overlooked that it would result in a wholly unjust situation in which a corresponding number of workmen in the II Unit would be prejudicially affected even though they had nothing to do with the I Unit
425 We therefore set aside the judgments of the Division Bench and of the learned Single Judge and restore the Award passed by the Tribunal
Before concluding we should record that the learned counsel for the management submitted that the management was willing to pay ex gratia a sum of Rs10000 to each of the workmen who had not received till now any compensation payable to them under section 25 FFF of the Act for closure of the I Unit
He submitted that as on date 11 workmen had not received the compensation payable to them on closure and that each of them would be paid the compensation payable to them on closure and Rs 10000
The names of those 11 work men are as under SShri 1
Madanlal Surajbali Jaiswal 2
Sukhdev 3
Dulsinger Rasharak Jaiswal 4
Motilal Pawar Kurmi 5
Mohanram Katwaro Jaiswal 6
Udaychand Keshavasingh 7
Zagaro Palveer Singh 8
Murlidhar Govind Javane 9
Wandev Prasad 10
Radhashyam Rajpati Yadav 11
Karmraj Lakshman Yadav We therefore direct the management to pay each of the above workmen compensation payable to them on closure and a sum of Rs 10000
The management is given two months  time to pay the amount due to each of the above eleven workmen
The appeal is accordingly allowed
There shall however be no order as to costs
SR Appeal al lowed


Summary:
 The facts and issues involved in all these appeals were similar
Criminal Appeals Nos
644 4587 and Criminal Appeals Nos
642 45 87 were against the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay dismissing the Criminal Appeal filed by masters of two trawlers against their conviction and sentence and allowing the appeal filed by Commander SD Baijal against the acquittal of accused Nos 3 and 4 ie the Charterer Company and its Managing Director and also releasing the trawlers
The High Court convicted the accused Nos 3 and 4 for contravention of sub section 6 of section 5 of the Maritime Zones of India Act 1981 MZI Act read with section 7 thereof and rule 16 of the Maritime Zones of India Rules 1981 MZI Rules
The High Court also ordered confiscation of the two trawlers vesting the same in favour of the Central Government under section 13 of the MZI Act
The two trawlers involved foreign vessels were chartered by the respondents Nos 4  5 herein for fishing in Maritime Zone of India after obtaining permit under section 5 of the MZI Act
The trawlers along with three other pairs of trawlers were apprehended and seized by the Coast Guard ship commanded by Commander SD Baijal for fishing operations in the exclusive economic zone of India in violation of the terms and conditions of the permit and the letter of intent granted to that company by the Government of India under section 54 of the MZI Act and in violation of the MZI Rules
They were prosecuted by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on the complaint filed by Commander SD Baijal as authorised officer under section 19 of the MZI Act
The masters of the trawlers respondents Nos 2 and 3 were convicted and sentenced to pay fines and the other accused respondents Nos 4 and 5 were acquitted and the trawlers and the fishes thereon were ordered to be released on payment of the detention 642 charges
Of the other three pairs of foreign trawlers chartered by Indian Company for fishing in the Maritime Zone of India under the permit granted under the MZI Act which were seized and prosecuted two pairs of trawlers with fishes thereon were ordered to be confiscated while one pair of these trawlers were directed to be released
The masters of each pair of trawlers were similarly convicted and sentenced to pay fine for violation of the provisions of the said Act and the Rules thereunder
The Masters of the pair of trawlers filed a criminal appeal against their conviction and sentence while the complaining Commander SD Baijal filed a criminal appeal against the acquittal of respondent Nos 4 and 5 ie the Managing Director of the company and the company and also against the release of the trawlers in spite of conviction of the masters under section 12b of the MZI Act
The High Court disposed of these appeals by a common judgment allowing the appeal of the masters in part and modifying their sentence and convicting
in the appeal filed by SD Baijal the Managing Director and the Company accused respondents Nos 3 and 4 and sentencing them to pay fines and ordering the trawlers to be confiscated with fishes thereon or the proceeds thereof in case of sale of the same
The High Court also held the masters of the trawlers guilty under Rule 81g and convicted them under section 12a instead of section 12b of the MZI Act but maintained the sentence of penalty
Criminal Appeals Nos
645 4787 and Criminal Appeals Nos
65051 of 1987 arose out of a common judgment of the High Court in two criminal appeals modifying in part the judgment and order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate whereby the Magistrate had convicted the masters of the trawlers ie accused Nos 1 and 2 for contravening Rule 81g read with Rule 16 and section 20b of the MZI Act and sentenced them to pay fines in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment
The Magistrate also had made an order confiscating the two trawlers alongwith the fishing gear equipments stores cargo and fish and vesting the same together with the proceeds of the sale of the fish if any with the Central Government
The Magistrate had acquitted the accused Nos 3 and 4 ie the Charterer Company and its Managing Director
The criminal appeal filed by Cdr
SD Baijal against the order acquitting the accused Nos 3 and 4 above said was allowed by the High Court and they were convicted and sentenced to pay fines etc
The order of confiscation of the two trawlers was maintained
The criminal appeal filed by the masters of the trawlers was dismissed with the modification that the conviction 643 made under section 12b was altered to one under section 12a of the MZI Act and the sentence of vigorous imprisonment was modified
Criminal Appeals Nos
648 4987 and Criminal Appeals Nos
65253187 arose out of a common judgment of the High Court dismissing the appeals of the masters of the vessels and allowing the appeals filed on behalf of the prosecution
All these appeals were filed against the judgment and order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in the Criminal case wherein the Magistrate had convicted and sentenced the masters of the trawlers with the imposition of fines on accused Nos 1 and 2 for contravening Rules 81g and 16 of the MZI Rules and also of the offence under section 5 of the Act and imposing penalty section 12b of the MZI Act
The Magistrate had acquitted the accused Nos 3 and 4 ie the Charterer Company and its Managing Director and directed the release of the trawlers in favour of the masters of the trawlers
The criminal appeal filed by the masters of the vessels was dismissed by the High Court and the conviction and sentence us 12b of the MZI Act was altered to one under section 12a of the Act
The criminal appeal filed on behalf of the prosecution was allowed and the accused Nos 3 and 4 ie the Charterer Company and its Managing Director were convicted and sentenced to pay fine
The vessel and the fishing equipment were confiscated and directed to vest in favour of the Central Government
Criminal Appeal Nos 654 5587 and Criminal Appeal No 656 of 1987 arose out of a common judgment and order of the High Court in the Criminal Appeals filed by the Charterers and the masters of the trawlers respectively
These appeals were filed against the judgment and order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in a criminal case against the masters of vessel
The Magistrate had convicted and sentenced the accused Nos 1 and 2 ie the masters of the vessel to pay fines in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment and had confiscated the trawlers together with fishing gear equipment stores cargo and fish therein
The criminal appeal of the masters of the trawlers had been dismissed with a modification of the conviction and sentence passed under section 12c of the MZI Act was altered to one us 12a of the Act and the criminal appeal of the Charterers was dismissed with a modification of the imprisonment awarded in default of payment of fine imposed on the appellant to simple imprisonment instead of rigorous imprisonment
The order of confiscation of trawlers passed by the Magistrate was confirmed
Dismissing all the appeals the Court 644  HELD The appellants contended that at the time of the apprehension of the trawlers no fish had been found on board and there was no evidence that fish on board was seized or that what had happened to fish or who had put the fish in the hold of the trawlers and that therefore no presumption under section 22 of the Act could be drawn that the trawlers were engaged in fishing within the exclusive economic zone of India in contravention of the provision of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder
This contention could not be considered in appeal by special leave as there had been concurrent findings by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the High Court that there was fish on board
649F H 650A The main argument on behalf of the appellants was focussed on the vital question as to whether the words used in section 13 of the MZI Act shall also be liable to confiscation mandated that the foreign vessel used in the commission of the offence would be con fiscated as soon as the masters were convicted under section 10 or 11 or 12 of the Act or it was the discretion of the Court to order either release of the vessel or confiscation of the vessel with the fish and the other equipment cargo and fishing gear considering the graveness of the offence
On an examination of the objects and Reasons and the various provisions of the Maritime Zones of India Regulation of Fishing by Foreign Vessels Act 1981 it was crystal clear that the MZI Act had been enacted with the object of preventing illegal poaching of fishes by foreign vessels including foreign vessels chartered by Indian citizens in the exclusive economic zone of India at a depth less than 40 fathoms by providing deterrent punishment for contravention of the provisions of the Act to protect Indian fishermen
The objects and reasons were to be taken into consideration in interpreting the provisions of the statute
In interpreting a statute the Court has to ascertain the will and policy of F the legislature as discernible from the object and scheme of the enactment and the language used therein
Viewed in this context it was apparent that the said Act had been made with the sole purpose of preventing poaching of fishes by foreign vessels chartered by Indian citizens within the exclusive economic zone of India as specified in Rule 81g of Maritime Zone of India Rules as amended in 1982 as well as in breach of the provisions of the said Act and the terms and conditions of the permit issued under section 5 of the said Act
650E G 651D 654F Section 13 of the Act expressly says that besides the conviction and sentence of the masters of the vessels and charterers the vessel is liable to be confiscated with fishes therein
The appellants  contention was that the words shall also be liable to confiscation used in section 13 of 645 the Act did not mean that it was mandatory to confiscate the vessel as the masters of the vessel had been convicted and sentenced to pay penalty under section 12 of the Act and as various punishments had been provided for different types of offences it was left to the discretion of the court to order confiscation of the vessel or to release the vessel
655A C Section 13 in clear and unimbiguous terms says that on the conviction of the master and the charterer of an offence under section 10 or 11 or 12 the vessel used in connection with the offence together with the fish on board such ship or the sale proceeds of such fish and stores cargo shall also be liable to confiscation
Viewed in the context the words shall also be liable to be confiscation do not leave any discretion to the Magistrate or the court to make no order of confiscation of the vessel as soon as the masters of the vessel were convicted us 10 or 11 or 12 of the Act
The Legislative intent in making this provision was to provide deterrent punishment to prohibit fishing in the exclusive economic zone of India by foreign vessels in infringement of the Act and the rules framed thereunder and the conditions of the permit or licence
Viewed in this context section 13 mandates that on conviction of the master and the charterer of an offence under section 12 not only penalty of fine would be imposed the vessel used in or in connection with the commission of such offence has to be confiscated
It is not open to the court to consider the graveness of the offence and other extenuating circumstances and to make no order for confiscation of the offending vessel concerned
Confiscation of the vessel is the immediate statutory consequence of the finding that an offence either under section 10 or 11 or 12 has been proved and the master of the vessel has been convicted
Section 13 is thus mandatory and it is not open to the court to refrain from making an order confiscating the offending vessel as soon as the masters of the vessel are convicted of an offence under section 12 and awarded penalty
660BF The judgments and orders of the High Court were affirmed
The vessels had been detained in Bombay Port after apprehending them on July 26 1984 and a huge amount had to be paid as port charges
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the Port Authorities at Bombay might consider if an application was made by the parties for exemption or partial exemption of the same favourably in view of the order of confiscation of the trawlers
660G H State of Madhya Pradesh vs Asad Bharat Finance Co Anr 1966 Supp
SCR 473 Indo China Steam Navigation Co Ltd vs Jasjit Singh Addl
Collector of Customs  Ors   646 Superintendent and Legal Remembrancer of Legal Affairs to the Govt
Of West Bengal vs Abani Maity   KP Verghese vs The Income tax officer Ernakulam and another 19821 I SCR 629 and FN Roy vs Collector of Customs Calcutta   referred to