GOODRICH MARITIME PVT. LTD. Vs. KANDLA PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has arisen out of the judgment and order dtd. 2/9/2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition on the premise of an order passed by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.104 of 2000 wherein it was opined that the dispute with regard to payment of container storage charge/ground rent would require recording of evidence and cannot be summarily adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner therein had been relegated to approach the Civil Court.

(2.) The dispute in the writ petition was with regard to action of the respondent authority namely Kandla Port Trust in levying container storage charges vide bills bearing Nos.244362 and 244357 both dtd. 6/6/2006 and 26/6/2006; respectively, and the demand of ground rent by respondent No.2 namely Central Warehousing Corporation, Container Freight Station, Kandla vide letter dated 3/4/5/2006. A further prayer is to direct the respondents to release the containers of the petitioner. The petitioner, as per the statement made in the writ petition is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is an agent of International Shipping Line M/s.Vasco Maritime Pte. Ltd., Singapore. It is engaged in the business of international ocean trade and is merely the carrier of the consignments which were transported in their containers to the specified destination. Upon execution of the contract of carriage, the petitioner is entitled to the return of the empty containers which belong to them.

(3.) It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the transaction lies between the consignees and the respondent port and in the event of any dispute arising with regard to the consignments, which may lead to the consignee not taking the delivery and possession of their consignments, the respondents have a right to pursue the matter with the consignees only. They cannot detain the containers belonging to the carrier of the consignments. It was argued that despite repeated requests made by the petitioner, the respondents had not released the containers and instead levied the bills levying container storage charges on the premise that the petitioner did not remove the containers and as such, they are liable for the ground rent.