M/S SESA GOA LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY AGENT Vs. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF PORT OF CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil suit has been filed, to pass a judgement and decree, against the Defendant:-

(2.) Plaint:- The Plaintiff is a Public Limited Company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in mining and export of iron ore for more than 50 years. The Plaintiff also exports iron ore from Chennai. The Defendant is a Major Port, constituted under the Major Port Trust Act, 1963 and is providing services to the importers and exporters at the Port of Chennai and granting lease of open space warehouses for storage of goods to the importers and exporters. The Plaintiff, as an exporter utilising the services of the Defendant, had opened a current account No.198 and after the same was closed, opened a EDI (Electronic Data Interface) Account with the Indian Bank, Chennai on 19.7.2002 to enable the Defendant to recover legitimate charges due by the Plaintiff from the said EDI Account. The iron ore shipped from Chennai Port Trust is extracted, processed and transported by Rail and finally stacked in the plot space at the Defendant Port Trust.

(3.) It had been stated in the plaint that the Plaintiff had entered into an agreement, dated 01.06.1997 for the period 01.06.1997 to 30.9.1997 and another agreement dated 30.10.1998 for the period 10.7.1998 to 9.7.1999. The Defendant had allotted plots of various sizes at Chennai Port in favour of the Plaintiff. By letters dated 7.7.1999 and 13.9.1999, the Defendant had allowed the Plaintiff to continue to occupy and use the plot for the period 1.1.2000 to 31.10.2000. On the request of the Plaintiff, by its letter dated 17.4.2000, the Defendant by letter dated 6.9.2000 had allotted to the Plaintiff a plot measuring 120x35 meters which remained in the possession of the Plaintiff for the period 1.11.2000 to 29.1.2002. A plot was also allotted by the Defendant by letter dated 22.12.2001 for the period 30.1.2002 to 31.3.2004. Similarly by letter dated 24.2.2002, the Defendant had also allotted a plot in favour of the Plaintiff for the period 1.4.2004 to 30.6.2004. During the above periods, the Plaintiff had exported substantial quantity of iron ore. The agreements dated 1.6.1997 and 30.10.1998 cast an obligation on the part of the Plaintiff to export quantity not less than 6,00,000 MTS of iron ore under valid export licence from the Government of India and charges will have to be paid to the Defendant towards wharfage and cleaning. If the Plaintiff did not export the said quantity, the Plaintiff will have to pay the Defendant the amounts for the shortfall. However, after 10.7.1999 till 30.6.1964, as stated above, through letters, plots were allotted, but there was no obligation on the Plaintiff to export the minimum guaranteed throughput as contained in the agreement dated 30.10.1998. The letters of allotment did not contain such terms or conditions. However, a notice of demand dated 11.4.2005 was received by the Plaintiff, whereby the Defendant had claimed a shortfall in exports during the period 7.8.2000 to 25.6.2001, 26.8.2001 to 7.6.2002 and 10.7.2002 to 5.6.2003, aggregating to a total of 2,37,732 MTS and demanded payment of Rs.87,79,269.60/-. The Plaintiff had sent a reply dated 19.4.2005 denying the liability.