IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.276 OF 1990 The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay ..Plaintiffs Vs. Surjit Kaur & Ors. ...Defendants --- Mr. V.J. Makhija with Mr. Parag Khandhar i/b. M/s. Mulla & Mulla for Plaintiff None for Defendants ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 17TH AUGUST, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard Shri Makhija the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiffs. 2. None for the Defendants. 3. Even on the last date, when the issues were framed, none appears on behalf of the Defendants on 4th August, 2009. 4. Mr. S.M. Deshmukh, Assistant Docks Manager, states that he has affirmed the affidavit dated 4th July, 2009. He states that the contents of the said affidavit are true and correct. The affidavit in lieu of evidence is taken on record and marked Exhibit 'P'. 5. The Plaintiff has also filed compilation of documents. The said documents are taken on record and marked Exhibit P-1 Colly. 6. The Plaintiff has filed his suit for recovery of Port Trust charges in the nature of wharfage and demurrage to the tune of Rs. 1,00,121/- The Second Defendant is the agent of the vessel withheld m.v. “Mikhail Olminskiy” imported one Honda Accord Motor car and furnished to the Plaintiff. An Import General Manifest bearing No.2242 dated 9th October, 1986 of the said vessel showing cargoes intended to be discharged from the said vessel at the port of Mumbai. The general landing date and the last free date of the cargo of the said vessel fell on 16th October, 1986 and 21st October, 1986. The First Defendant is the importer of the said vehicle and the Second Defendant is the Bailor and, therefore, owner within the definition of the term under section 2 (O) of the said Act. Though the Defendants were supposed to take the delivery within 7 clear days from the said date of land and to pay to the Port Trust the charges which were due and payable, the Defendants failed to clear the said car or pay the including charges. 7. Thereafter, by order dated 3rd November, 1987, the Additioinal Collector of Customs passed an order of confiscation under the provisions of section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. A copy of the confiscation order was served on the Plaintiffs and also on the Defendants on 12th December, 1987. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that, therefore, the Defendants were liable to pay the Port Trust charges from 21st October, 1986 till 2nd November, 1987 according to the Docks Scale of Rates which were being imposed. The total amount which was payable to the Plaintiffs , therefore, came to an amount of Rs.1,00,121/- according to the Docks Scale of Rates. 8. The Plaintiffs' witness has identified the signature of P.G. Pade, who is prepared the working sheet in respect of the said calculations. He has submitted that the said calculations are correct. He has also produced Docks Scale of Rates which were being imposed by producing photocopies of the original Docks Scale of Rates. 9. By letter dated 19th March, 1998, the Plaintiffs asked the Second Defendant to furnish the names and addresses of the importers and to inform the party and also the persons who collected the delivery orders. The Plaintiffs' witness has identified the signature of the Assistant Manager (Sales) Shri R.K. Baroot who had signed the said letter. The Second Defendant furnished the name and addresses of the First Defendant as the importer/consignee along with photocopy of the Bill of Lading by the letter dated 8th April, 1988. The said letter is produced on record. Thereafter, several letters are written by the Plaintiffs to the Defendants which were signed and/or produced and taken on record. However, in spite of several letters which were written by the Plaintiffs, the Defendants did not comply with the request for payment of the Port Trust charges and, therefore, the Plaintiffs have filed this present suit. 10. The Plaintiffs have claimed interest at the rate of 15% p.a. In view of the evidence led by the Plaintiffs' witness and the documents which are produced on record, the Plaintiffs have proved their case and, therefore, are entitled for judgment and decree, more particularly, because the Defendants have not appeared before this Court. Suit is, accordingly, decreed in terms of prayer clause 23(a). 11. Suit is, accordingly, disposed of. V.M. KANADE J.