• Investment World
• eWorld
• Catalyst
• Mentor
• Life
• Canvas
• Praxis
• Urban Pulse
• Brand Quest

Stocks

• Quotes
• SE Diary
• Scoreboard
• Open-End Mutual Fund

Port Info

• Ships in Ports
  
  

Archives

• Yesterday
• Datewise
• Resources

Group Sites

• The Hindu
• Business Line
• The Sportstar
• Frontline
• The Hindu eBooks
• The Hindu Images

Our Legal Correspondent

Chennai , Sept. 6

AN issue pertaining to alleged non-performance of its statutory duty under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 by the Chennai Port Trust, was remanded by the First Bench of the Madras High Court to a single judge for a fresh decision, after setting aside the earlier order of the latter for not having impleaded and heard the consignee of the imported cargo.

Allowing an appeal by the Chennai-based Surana Industries Ltd, which had imported steel scrap from UK, the Bench, comprising the Chief Justice, Mr Markandey Katju, and Mr Justice A. Kulasekaran, directed the single judge, to decide the matter afresh expeditiously, after hearing all the parties concerned in accordance with law.

The Bench said that none of the points raised by the counsels for the parties had been decided on merit except that the appellant was a necessary party and should have been impleaded in the writ petition. All other points (including maintainability of writ petition and availability of alternative remedy before the civil court, etc) could be raised before the single judge.

"Since the matter is extremely urgent (as there is day to day heavy loss by way of demurrage), we request the learned single judge...to decide the case on top priority basis," the Bench said.

According to the appellant, they purchased 22,531 tonnes of steel scrap from Midland Resources Holding Ltd, UK, under contract dated January 20, 2005. The writ petitioner (respondent 1 in this appeal) — Good Earth Maritime Ltd, Chennai — was the owner of the vessel, which was chartered by the seller. It was alleged that the discharge of cargo from the vessel at the Chennai Port had been slow much against the charter party agreement. As a result, the charterers/consignees owed to the petitioner a sum of Rs 1,76,00,000 towards demurrage.

Also, it was alleged that the Port Trust failed to act on the petitioner's letters and allowed the consignees to remove part of the cargo already discharged in violation of their duty under Section 60 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963.

After hearing the writ petition, the single judge said that no further orders were required except directing the respondent to discharge the cargo of the petitioner from the vessel, of course on condition that the petitioner met the expenses that might be incurred by the respondent-Board.

The appellant alleged that though the prayer of the petitioner regarding lien was not granted by the single judge, yet taking advantage of the order, the Port Trust had refused delivery of the consignment although the appellant had paid full consideration for the same.

The First Bench held that the appellant raised several points, and it was not inclined to go into them on merits. The Bench was of the opinion that the appellant was entitled to succeed on the sole point that they were a necessary party in the writ petition, but was not impleaded or heard, and hence, on this ground alone, the impugned order of the single judge was liable to be set aside.

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
e-GoM to announce IA's price for Airbus acquisition today

Copyright © 2005, The Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu Business Line