Case: M/S Rasiklal Kantilal &amp; Co Vs. Board Of Trustee Of Port Of Bombay

person claiming delivery of the goods acquired title to the goods only towards the end of the period of the bailment of the goods with the 1st respondent would result in driving the 1st respondent to recover the amount due to it from the bailor or his agent who may or may not be within the jurisdiction of the municipal courts of this country (by resorting to a cumbersome procedure of litigation). The 1st submission is, therefore, rejected. 48A. Now, we deal with the second submission. The appellant claims that he is entitled to complete remission of the demurrage. According to the appellant, the facts of the case not only justify but also demand the exercise of the discretion conferred upon the 1st respondent under Section 53 of the Act to grant a complete remission of the demurrage in question. According to the appellant, the Government of India issued certain guidelines It is not very clear from the record whether these guidelines were issued by the Government of India or guidelines framed by the 1st respondent. In the written submissions, the appellant describes the guidelines framed by the Government of India whereas under the judgment under appeal at para 24, it appears that the appellant’s case before the High Court was that they were guidelines framed by the 1st respondent. “….He would submit that the guidelines framed by the BPT itself provides for remission asked for by the petitioners when the detention of the goods by the Custom was for bonafide operation of ITC formalities.” Per contra the case of the 1st respondent before the High Court regarding the guidelines appears to be “…..remission is granted on ex-gratia basis, that too, by exercising discretion on the basis of guidelines issued by the Union of India and adopted by resolution passed by respondent No. 1 along with Custom Department.” The High Court did not record any categorical finding in this regard except stating “47. In exercise of statutory powers under section 101 of the Major Port Trust Act guidelines for remission of demurrage charges are framed.” dated 24.1.1992 which structure the discretion of the Port Trust in the matter of granting remission. 49. We notice that the text of the guidelines permit granting of remission upto 80 per cent of demurrage in appropriate cases. We also notice that the cap of 80 per cent is not absolute. The 1st respondent can even grant complete remission in appropriate cases. (i) Admittedly, the 1st respondent granted remission to an extent of Rs.90,52,535.00 (approximately) out of the total claim towards demurrage of Rs.2,81,67,333.00. (ii) The liability to pay demurrage arose because of the non-clearance of the goods from the 1st respondent’s property for a considerable period of time. (iii) The period could be divided into two phases: Phase I before the point of time when appellant started claiming the right to take delivery; Delay in taking delivery is attributable purely to the failure of the original consignee. The appellant clearly knew or at least ought to have known, when he purchased the goods that the 1st respondent would demand demurrage. The appellant as a person claiming through the consignor is not entitled in law to claim any right of remission on the ground that he did not have any interest or title in the goods for such period. AND Phase II after the present appellant’s right to take delivery of goods came into existence. Such delay occurred because of the time taken in ensuring that the appellant complied with the various statutory obligations to import goods such as amendment of the IGM etc. 50. The fact that the appellant was not permitted to clear the goods because of the pendency of some proceedings initiated by the customs authorities by itself does not create a right of remission in favour of the appellant. See International Airports Authority of India v. Grand Slam International, (1995) 3 SCC 151 Though it may constitute a relevant circumstance for considering granting remission if the 1st respondent so chooses as a matter of policy. As a matter of fact, remission of a part of the demurrage was granted by the 1st respondent. 51. Now, we come to the submission that the respondent’s decision to decline remission to the appellant is discriminatory because remission was granted in the case of a similarly situated consignee called Gilt Pack. Unfortunately, though the High Court noted the rival submission in the context of the allegation of discrimination, it did not record any conclusion on that count. 52. From the facts available on record, we are of the opinion that firstly, the cases of Gilt Pack and appellant are not identical. Gilt Pack was the case where the original consignee sold the goods to a third party on high seas even before their arrival into India. It so transpired that the purchaser did not have an appropriate license under the relevant law to import the goods. In view of the said problem, the goods were detained for some time and eventually the original consignee himself cleared the goods The full factual background as to how it all happened is not relevant for our purpose.. It is in the said circumstances Gilt Pack was granted remission. We are not concerned with the question whether the discretion was appropriately exercised in the case of Gilt Pack. We are only on the question whether the facts of Gilt Pack and the appellant herein are identical. 53. However, we must make it clear that the authority of the 1st respondent to grant or decline remission of any amount due towards any rate payable under THE ACT must be based on rational consideration and a sound policy. Such a requirement is inherent in the fact that 1st respondent is a statutory body discharging important statutory obligations. 1st respondent could not bring anything on record to our notice which demonstrates the reasons for declining remission as claimed by the appellant nor any clear policy of the respondent which regulates the discretion.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]19. It is apparent from the language of Section 48 that though it authorises BOARDS to stipulate and collect rates for various services to be rendered, the Act is silent regarding persons from whom such rates could be collected. It is pertinent to note that since services contemplated under Sections 49A, 49B, 50A and 50B are services exclusively to be rendered to the vessel (ship). It is reasonable to interpret that only the ship and its agents are liable to pay the rates for those services. We are fortified in our conclusion by the language of Sections 50A50A. Port-due on vessels in ballast.— A vessel entering any port in ballast and not carrying passengers shall be charged with a port-due at a rate to be determined by the Authority and not exceeding three-fourths of the rate with which she would otherwise beon 50B. Port-due on vessels not discharging or taking in cargo.— When a vessel enters a port but does not discharge or take in any cargo or passengers therein, (within the exception of such unshipment and reshipment as may be necessary for purposes of repair), she shall be charged with a port-due at a rate to be determined by the authority and not exceeding half the rate with which she would otherwise bemake it express when they sayn Maritime Law by a long established practice a vessel is always referred to as22. It appears to us that in view of the fact Section 42(2) only contemplatesof the goods but notof goods, Parliament conferred on BOARDS the authority tothe goods of which charge is taken of. The purpose behind the twin declarations contained in Section 59 is a little intriguing. However, we do not wish to express any final opinion in this regard as no submission in this regard is made and such an examination is not necessary for deciding the case on hand.In our opinion, though the question was not raised before the High Court, the appellant need not be barred from raising this question before us because it is a pure and substantial question of law. No enquiry into any fact is really necessary to decide the said question of law. The only fact which is not clearly established on record is the point of time at which the title in the goods passed to the appellant. But, in our opinion (for the reasons to be given later), that fact is wholly irrelevant for determining the authority of the 1st respondent to collect demurrage from the appellant. We, therefore, proceed to examine the correctness of the submission.With respect, we agree with the conclusions recorded by this Court in the cases of ROWTHER-II and Forbes that a BOARD could recover the rates due, either from the steamer agent or the consignee but we are of the humble opinion that enquiry into the question as to when the property in the goods passes to the consignee is nothave already noticed the submission of the appellant that the appellant is not liable to make payment of any demurrage incurred prior to the acquisition of title in the goods by the appellant. Enquiry into the title of the goods and the point of time at which the title passes to the consignee is equally irrelevant for determining the authority of a BOARD to recover the amounts due to it under THE ACT.Enquiry into the relationship between either the BOARD, the consignor of goods, the owner of the vessel and the steamer agent on one hand or the consignee and the BOARD on the other, in our opinion, is wholly irrelevant in examining the right of the BOARD to recover the amounts due towards the rates or rent for services rendered with respect to the goods. The right of the BOARD is unquestionable. The only question is: fromwhom can the BOARD recover– we emphasise the question is not who is liable. Depending on the nature of the relationship between the consignor and consignee, the liability may befall either ofobligation of the bailee to return the bailed goods when the purpose of bailment is accomplished and the obligation of the bailor to pay the baileenecessary expenses incurred by him for the purpose of thein our opinion would attend not only a bailment by contract but every kind ofthis juncture, we must point out that the declaration under Section 42(7)42 (7) After any goods have been taken charge of and a receipt given for them under this section, no liability for any loss or damage which may occur to them shall attach to any person to whom a receipt has been given or to the master or owner of the vessel from which the goods have been landed orthe owner of the ship and his agents is limited only to the obligations owed by the bailor to the consignee not to the sub bailor like the 1st respondent.On the other hand, in the light of the legal position declared by the Constitution Bench in ROWTHER-I, the 1st respondent is a sub-bailee of the goods bailed by consignor (bailor) to the ship-owner (bailee). The goods are bailed through the agent (steamer agent) of the bailee. The appellant is only a person claiming through the bailor, without any direct contractual relationship with the 1st respondent.It can be seen from the above that the 1856 Act enacts a fiction that the consignee to whom the property in the goods shall pass shall beto the same liabilities in respect of such goods as if the contract contained in the bill of lading had been made withBill of lading is evidence of a contracteen the shipper (consignor) and the owner of the ship by which the owner of the ship agrees to transport the goods delivered by the consignor to a specified destination and deliver it to the consignee. Delivery of goods pursuant to a bill of lading creates a bailment between the shipper and the owner of the ship. Obviously the legislature knew that a consignee under a bill of lading is a 3rd party to the contract but intrinsically connected with the transaction and thought it necessary to specify the rights and obligations of the consignee. Hence, the fiction under the 1856 Act, that the moment the property in goods passes to the consignee, the liabilities of the consignee in respect of such goods would be the same as those of the consignor, as if the contract contained in the bill of lading had been made with the consignee.The consequence is that the 1st respondent (sub-bailee) would be entitled to enforce its rights flowing from the Bailment between the ship owner and the 1st respondent against the consignee and recover expenses incurred by it in connection with the bailment from the consignee. The terms and conditions of the contract between the consignor or person claiming delivery of the goods are irrelevant for determining the right of the 1st respondent to recover its dues. The obligations/liability of the consignee is determined by the statute. But the said obligation is not exclusive to the consignee. The consignor (bailor) is not relieved of the obligation to pay by virtue of Section 158 of the Contract Act the expenses incurred by the 1st respondent. Nothing is brought to our notice to hold otherwise. Atthis juncture, we must point out that the declaration under Section 42(7)2 (7) After any goods have been taken charge of and a receipt given for them under this section, no liability for any loss or damage which may occur to them shall attach to any person to whom a receipt has been given or to the master or owner of the vessel from which the goods have been landed orthe owner of the ship and his agents is limited only to the obligations owed by the bailor to the consignee not to the sub bailor like the 1st respondent.If the ACT authorises the 1st respondent to recover its dues by bailing the goods under bailment, in those cases where the consignee does not turn up to take the delivery of the goods within the time stipulated under Sections 61 or 62 of the ACT, to deny the right to demand and recover the amounts due from the consignee when he seeks delivery of the goods under bailment would be illogical and inconsistent with the scheme of theright, in our view, undoubtedly enables the 1st respondent to claim various amounts due to it, from any person claiming delivery of the goods either the bailor or a person claiming through the bailor for the services rendered w.r.t. the goods. Denying such a right on the ground that the person claiming delivery of the goods acquired title to the goods only towards the end of the period of the bailment of the goods with the 1st respondent would result in driving the 1st respondent to recover the amount due to it from the bailor or his agent who may or may not be within the jurisdiction of the municipal courts of this country (by resorting to a cumbersome procedure of1st submission is, therefore, rejected.Now, we deal with the second submission. The appellant claims that he is entitled to complete remission of the demurrage. According to the appellant, the facts of the case not only justify but also demand the exercise of the discretion conferred upon the 1st respondent under Section 53 of the Act to grant a complete remission of the demurrage in question. According to the appellant, the Government of India issued certain guidelinesis not very clear from the record whether these guidelines were issued by the Government of India or guidelines framed by the 1st respondent. In the written submissions, the appellant describes the guidelines framed by the Government of India whereas under the judgment under appeal at para 24, it appears that thecase before the High Court was that they were guidelines framed by the 1st respondent.We notice that the text of the guidelines permit granting of remission upto 80 per cent of demurrage in appropriate cases. We also notice that the cap of 80 per cent is not absolute. The 1st respondent can even grant complete remission in appropriate cases.The fact that the appellant was not permitted to clear the goods because of the pendency of some proceedings initiated by the customs authorities by itself does not create a right of remission in favour of the appellant.International Airports Authority of India v. Grand Slam International, (1995) 3 SCCit may constitute a relevant circumstance for considering granting remission if the 1st respondent so chooses as a matter of policy. As a matter of fact, remission of a part of the demurrage was granted by the 1st respondent.Now, we come to the submission that thedecision to decline remission to the appellant is discriminatory because remission was granted in the case of a similarly situated consignee called Gilt Pack. Unfortunately, though the High Court noted the rival submission in the context of the allegation of discrimination, it did not record any conclusion on that count.From the facts available on record, we are of the opinion that firstly, the cases of Gilt Pack and appellant are not identical. Gilt Pack was the case where the original consignee sold the goods to a third party on high seas even before their arrival into India. It so transpired that the purchaser did not have an appropriate license under the relevant law to import the goods. In view of the said problem, the goods were detained for some time and eventually the original consignee himself cleared the goodsfull factual background as to how it all happened is not relevant for our purpose.It is in the said circumstances Gilt Pack was granted remission. We are not concerned with the question whether the discretion was appropriately exercised in the case of Gilt Pack. We are only on the question whether the facts of Gilt Pack and the appellant herein are identical.However, we must make it clear that the authority of the 1st respondent to grant or decline remission of any amount due towards any rate payable under THE ACT must be based on rational consideration and a sound policy. Such a requirement is inherent in the fact that 1st respondent is a statutory body discharging important statutory obligations. 1st respondent could not bring anything on record to our notice which demonstrates the reasons for declining remission as claimed by the appellant nor any clear policy of the respondent which regulates the discretion.