Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Home
2020 (12) TMI 923 - HC - CustomsMandatory injunction seeking release of bills of lading illegally withheld by the defendants - Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act 2015 read with Order 43 Rule 1 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Right to retain shipment - Defendant are freight services agents - HELD THAT - Upon reading the text messages of 1st 2nd and 3rd June together it is to be observed that after receiving Rs. 4, 35, 000/- defendants made the release of consignment conditional and exercised right to retain goods under Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act 1872. However messages of 3rd June 2020 show that the defendants had not exercised a particular liens but general liens. If read carefully 3rd June message does not suggest goods were retained for not making payment of sea freight for second consignment. In fact evidence and the circumstances emerging and flowing were indicative of the fact that Rs. 4, 35, 000/- were paid towards freight charges of second consignment and not against dues however in breach of assurance/promise defendants adjusted it against dues and declined to release bills. The question nos.15 (i. (ii. and (iii. are answered accordingly in negative. Whether defendants were entitled to exercise lien under Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act 1872? - HELD THAT - It may be stated that defendants were not entitled to exercise general lien being not banker factors wharfingers attorneys and also broker - In the case in hand pleadings of either party do not suggest that bailee was empowered to exercise the general lien envisaged under Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 - Goods cargo in the second shipment is a paper a perishable product which may loose its utility if kept for long period. Even otherwise plaintiffs have paid sea freight for second consignment. Therefore it is just and proper to direct defendants to release bills of lading immediately. In fact it appears that since second consignment has not been released within reasonable time plaintiffs vendees have cancelled the orders. Therefore the balance of convenience also tilts in favour of the plaintiffs. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|