K.P.V. SHAIK MOHAMMED ROWTHER AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. THE TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF MADRAS, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, MADRAS PORT TRUST AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 2nd Defendant in C.S.No.48 of 1970 who are the Steamer Agents of the vessel S.S. Vishva Kalyan are Appellants. The Trustees of the Port of Madras filed a suit against two defendants, the 1st being the named consignee of goods which were imported from broad and the 2nd Defendant being the Steamer Agent of t he vessel which carried such goods. The Vessel arrived at Madras on March 11,1967 and after the goods were manifested in the normal way, the Port Trust took statutory charge of the goods from the Vessel on the same day, but it transpires that in or about April 11,1967 the goods were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act and were removed to the confiscated goods warehouse by the Customs Department. The investigations by the Customs Department into the validity and regularity of the import took some time and in the meanwhile the harbour dues and demurrage charges with reference to the imported goods were mounting up by leaps and bounds. The Port Trust even in the year 1967 and before the Customs could pass the usual confiscation Order on their satisfaction that the import was illegal which they did on January 2, 1968, was corresponding with either of the defendants or both in the matter of taking over of the goods from the Trust premises under a threat of auction of the same, if it is not so removed, under Section 56 of the Madras Port Trust Act. The plaintiffs case is that neither of the Defendants would satisfy the demands made on them for harbour dues and demurrage charges which on the date of confiscation as aforesaid to wit 2.1.1968 rose up to Rs. 63,912.58. As the amount was not paid by the defendants, they issued a suit notice on 2.3.1970 and filed the present action for the recovery of the said sum and sought for interest on the same at 6% p.a. from the date of plaint till date of payment. The 1st Defendant remained ex parte. The 2nd defendant, Steamer Agent, took up the plea that he was not responsible for the demurrage charges and the claim if any could be projected only as against the named consignee. He would also plead that in the circumstances of the case, the theory of the continuing liability of the carrier would not apply and he was not liable either in equity or otherwise for the suit claim. Various legal contentions were raised and counsel agreed that it would not be necessary for us to trace the pleadings orthodoxically as it would be seen presently, the matter is more or less covered by authority excepting on a question of fact which we addressed ourselves with reference to the documents on record to find Whether the ratio of the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in K.P.V. Shaik Mohammed Rowther and Company Private Limited v. The Trustees of the Port Trust of Madras, Appeal No. 813 of 1967, would apply in all force to the facts of this case. The Learned Judge who tried the case accepted the plaintiff's claim and gave a decree both against the Consignee and as against the Steamer Agent. It is against this, the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) Mr. V.K.T. Chari, learned Counsel for the appellant (2nd defendant) wanted to contend that the general principle invoked by the Port Trust in similar matters claiming harbour dues and demurrage charges as against Steamer Agents is on the general assumption that the Steamer Agents' status continues as a Bailor until otherwise snapped by an endorsement on the Bill of Lading made by the Steamer Agents or a specific Delivery Order given to the consignee or the endorsee enabling them to take delivery of the goods directly from the Port Trust.

(3.) In the view, that we intend taking and having regard to the felicitous Judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court already referred to, we are not inclined to retrace the argument but confirm ourselves to the only question whether in the facts and circumstances of this case the Port Trust are right when they contend that the continuing liability on the part of the Steamer Agents still continues notwithstanding Customs Authorities exercising jurisdiction under Section 110 of the Customs Act and that the jural relationship of Bailor and Bailee as between the Steamer Agents and the Port Trust continued till 2.1.1968 when the goods were confiscated under Section 111 of the Customs Act. The Division Bench which considered similar circumstances after having examined the relative contentions of the parties made certain succinct observations which we cannot do better than by excerpting them. The learned Judges said: