1 905-nms-4071-05 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION jmi NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4071 OF 2005 IN SUIT NO. 1326 OF 2001. The Board of Trustees of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust. ..Plaintiff. vs. Continental Float Glass Ltd. & Ors. ..Defendants. .... Mr. Karam Advani, a/w. Mr. Deepak Lad, i/b. Advani & Co., for Plaintiff. Mr. Ram Kakkar, i/b. Dunmorr Sett, for Defendant No.2. Ms. Sneha Pandey, i/b. Motiwala & Co., for Defendant No.3. .... CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 4TH OCTOBER 2011. P.C. : The Plaintiff has filed the above Suit in the year 2001 seeking to recover the sale deficits i.e. the short realisation pursuant to the auction of the Suit consignment in respect of its claim for demmurage/ ground rent. Defendant No.2, in the year 2005 has taken out the above Notice of Motion seeking dismissal of the Suit against Defendant No.2, inter alia on the ground that the Defendant No.2 are mere steamer agents and as such no claim can be made against the Defendant No.2 by the Plaintiff. 2. The learned Advocate appearing for the Defendant No.2 has drawn my attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Forbes Forbes Campbell and Company Limited vs. 2 905-nms-4071-05 Board of Trustees of Port of Bombay, reported in 2008(4) SCC 87, Paragraph 9 of which reads as under :- “9. The questions of law of public importance in this appeal are as follows : 1. Whether a steamer agent can be construed as owner of the goods carried in his principal’s vessel within the definition of “owner” in relation to goods under Section 2(o) of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 ? 2. Whether a steamer agent at all can be made liable for payment of storage charges/ demurrage, which are uncleared by the consignee, even where steamer agent has not issued delivery order ? 3. In the event a steamer agent is held liable, to what extent he is liable and whether it absolves the respondent from acting promptly under Sections 61 or 62 of the Act ?” 3. The learned Advocate appearing for the Defendant No.2 submits that since some of the main issues involved in the present Notice of Motion are already pending determination before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, he is unable to argue the Notice of Motion. The Notice of Motion is therefore disposed of with liberty to the Defendant No.2 to file a fresh Notice of Motion seeking appropriate reliefs after the aforestated issues are decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Notice of Motion is accordingly disposed of. [ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]