1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO. 1827 OF 1988 The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay .. Plaintiffs. V/s. Mehra Steel (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd., .. Defendants. --- Mr. U.J. Makhija with Mr. Parag Khandhar i/by Mulla and Mulla for the Plaintiffs. None for the Defendants. --- CORAM : DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATED : 16TH JULY, 2009 P.C. : 1. The Suit has been instituted for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,78,000/- together with further interest on the principal sum of Rs.1,60,051.58/-, towards pre-confiscation charges payable to the Port Trust. In December, 1984 the Defendants imported a consignment containing Carbon Steel Bars which was discharged at the Port of Mumbai. The consignment was manifested in the Import General Manifest dated 18th December, 1984. The General Landing Date and the Last Free 2 Days of the Cargo were 26th December, 1984 and 29th December, 1984 respectively. The Defendants were Importers/ Consignees/ Owners of the consignment and failed to clear the consignment within seven days. The consignment was confiscated by an order dated 7th June, 1985 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs; but the Defendants were permitted to re-export the consignment subject to the payment of fine. The consignment was not cleared nor was it re- exported. The consignment incurred Port Trust Charges, wharfage and demurrage in a total sum of Rs. 1,60,051.58/- under the Docks Scale of Rates then in force. Despite letters of demand dated 4th of March, 1987, 3rd April, 1987 and 3rd August, 1987 the Defendants failed to pay the dues. 2. The Defendants have been served with a writ of summons. The Defendants have entered appearance through their Advocate and filed their written statement. The following issues were framed on 28th April, 2009 : i. Whether the Plaintiff proves that the Defendant is 3 the Importer/Owner/Consignee of the suit consignment as stated in Paragraph 4 of the plaint ?. ii. Whether the Plaintiff proves that pre-confiscation charges of suit consignment amounted to Rs. 1,55,904.58 as stated in Paragraph 6 of the plaint? iii. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 1,60,051.58 being the pre- confiscation port trust charges in respect of suit consignment together with a sum of Rs.17,948.42 being interest @ 15% p.a. From 4th March, 1987 till 16th December, 1987 aggregating to Rs. 1,78,000/- as stated in paragraph 9 of the plaint?. iv. To what reliefs, if any, are the Plaintiffs entitled? v. What order? 3. The Advocate appearing on behalf of the Defendants has taken a discharge. 4. The Plaintiffs have relied upon an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of the Assistant Docks Manager and on a compilation of the original documents. 4 5. Issue No.1 has been duly proved on the basis of the contents of paragraph 3 of the affidavit of evidence of the Assistant Docks Manager. The Import General Manifest and Bill of Lading reflected the name of the Defendants as owners/ importers/ consignees. Insofar as Issue No.2 is concerned, the Plaintiffs have duly proved the claim on the basis of the Docks Scale of Rates. The Plaintiffs have produced the working sheets, Docks Scale of Rates and Control Register. Issue No.2 would have to be answered in the affirmative. In the circumstances, Issue No.3 would have to be answered in the affirmative. 6. The Suit shall accordingly stand decreed in terms of prayer clause (a) with the modification that the Plaintiffs would be entitled to further interest @ 9% per annum on the principal sum from the date of the suit till realisation. (DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.) .....