TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court granted relief to respondent only on the ground that representations made by the said respondent for release of containers after de-stuffing the goods were not decided - Division Bench was not justified in relying upon the order passed in that case for the purpose of quashing the demand of container storage charges and ground rent - order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal of the letters patent appeals in accordance with law. - 4905 of 20101 - - - Dated:- 6-7-2010 - G.S. Singhvi and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ. REPRESENTED BY: S/Shri P.H. Parekh, Sr. Advocate, Lalit Chauhan, Ms. Pallavi Sharma and Ms. Mehak Bhalla (for M/s. Parekh Co.), Advocates with him, for the Appellant. S/Shri Gopal Subramanium, SG, Ashwani Kumar and T. V. Ratnani (for B. Krishna Prasad), Advocates, with him, for the Respondent. [Judgment per: G.S. Singhvi, J.]. - Leave granted. 2. These appeals are directed against order dated 27.11.2006 passed by the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court whereby it allowed the letters patent appeals preferred by respondent No.1 and quashed the demand of container storage charges and ground rent. 3. Respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or claim of containers. ..." 5. Respondent No.1 questioned the correctness of the order of the learned Single Judge by filing letters patent appeals. In response to the notice issued by the Division Bench, separate counter affidavits were filed on behalf of the appellant in both the appeals. For the sake of reference, paragraphs 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit filed by Shri P. Suresh Babu, Deputy Traffic Manager, Kandla Port Trust in Letters Patent Appeal No.1107/2006 are reproduced below:- "4. With reference to para-2(a) of the LPA, it is submitted that the learned Single Judge has passed the order after considering the order dated 05.04.2000 passed by this Hon'ble Court in LPA No. 104/2000 and also the order passed by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4537/2001. It is submitted that so far as the facts of the present case are concerned, on merits, they are different and, therefore, cannot be intermingled in this case. However, as in both the cases i.e. before the Hon'ble Single Judge in the present case and before the Hon'ble Division Bench, issue of disputed questions of fact is involved and, therefore, on that count, the petition is rightly rejected by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to take back the container with cargo to the port originated, and therefore so long as the containers remain on the port land, the ground rent is chargeable, in absence of the compliance of the required formalities and in that view of the matter the letters are not at all abandonment letters, and also not in accordance with the guideline provided by the TAMP Notification, and clearly an eye wash and therefore Bill No.244362 dated 6.6.2006 raised for port period i.e. from 3.8.2005 to 31.5.2006 stands in order and also in line with Issue No.(II) ii (a)(b) of TAMP Order dated 28th August, 2000 read with sections 61 and 62 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 (MPT Act for short) which provides Port Trust to start auction proceedings after expiry of 60/75 days in view of both sections i.e. MPT Act and TAMP Circular and it is not mandatory on the part of the Port Trust to auction the container within particular time and in such a case issue No.(V) of TAMP Order shall apply to shipping Lines which read as under:- ISSUE : (V) Actions to be taken by the Lines, if they want their containers back before the stipulated period. CLARIFICTION:- Since the Lines are not the owner of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t there was no reasonable basis for levy of container storage charges or ground rent because letter addressed by respondent No.1 to the Traffic Manager, Kandla Port Trust for permission to remove the containers to de-stuff the cargo was not attended by the concerned authority. 7. Shri P.H. Parekh, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon Sections 48, 49, 59, 61 and 62 of Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 (for short, `the 1963 Act'), Sections 11, 111(d) and 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 and orders dated 10.11.1999 and 19.7.2000 issued by the Tariff Authority for Major Port Trusts and argued that the Division Bench of the High Court committed serious error by quashing the demand of container storage charges and ground rent by relying upon order dated 24.7.2001 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 4537 of 2001 Kutch Shipping Agency Private Limited v. Board of Trustees, Kandla Port Trust ignoring that the containers were confiscated by the Customs officers on the ground that in the garb of Heavy Metal Scrap and Hollow Section Tubes, the consignors and consignees had tried to smuggle used and unused ammunitions in the country. Learned senior counsel submitted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt No.1 only on the ground that representations made by the said respondent for release of containers after de-stuffing the goods were not decided. In Kutch Shipping Agency Private Limited v. Board of Trustees, Kandla Port Trust (supra), this Court did not consider a question like the one raised in the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the appellant. Therefore, the Division Bench was not justified in relying upon the order passed in that case for the purpose of quashing the demand of container storage charges and ground rent. 10. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal of the letters patent appeals in accordance with law. 11. Before parting with the case, we consider it appropriate to place on record our deep appreciation for the efforts made by the learned Solicitor General which made the concerned authorities of the Government of India to realize potential threat to the national security due to import of war material and explosives in the garb of heavy metal scrap etc., and a comprehensive decision has been taken by the Ministry of Home Affairs to ensure strict supervision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
