9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 789X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndant on deposit of the amount of Rs. 18 lakhs within 60 days from the date of the said order. By further order dated 18.09.2023 passed in Interim Application for review, the Review Petition of the Defendant is rejected. At the same time, Defendant has without prejudice to its rights and contentions filed Application dated 08.09.2023 and submitted demand draft of Rs. 18 lakhs in the Registry of the Trial Court. 2. Defendant has filed the present Writ Petition. Commercial Summary Suit No. 465 of 2022 is filed by Plaintiff for a judgment and decree to direct Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs. 18,01,176/- alongwith interest. 3. Briefly stated, Plaintiff - a partnership firm in the course of its business approached Defendant to av ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Defendant. 4. Plaintiff filed Summary Suit seeking refund of the above charges paid to Defendant on the ground that Plaintiff was wrongfully charged with detention charges by Defendant in view of the detention-cum-demurrage certificate dated 05.08.2019 issued by the Custom Authorities and therefore sought refund of the same. 5. Mr. Mohammed, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner - Defendant would submit that by the impugned order dated 05.07.2023, Summons for Judgment filed by Plaintiff was dismissed and leave was granted to Defendant to defend the Suit, subject to payment of Rs. 18 lakhs. In doing so, a finding was returned that triable issues were raised and further that Defendant has made out a case for filing Written Stateme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... containers at the Port of discharge i.e. Nhava Sheva. He would submit that the containers arrived at Nhava Sheva on 17.06.2019 and the 14 day free detention period extended upto 30.06.2019. Hence Plaintiff was supposed to clear the goods and was required to return the containers latest by 30.06.2019 to the nominated container yard of the Defendant within the agreed 14 day free detention period at the port of discharge. He would submit that since the investigation was underway and the imported cargo was put on hold by the Customs Authority, Plaintiff became liable to pay the detention charges for the 48 days period to Defendant for use of the containers beyond 30.06.2019 and upto 03.08.2019. 7. He would submit that in view of the admitted f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charges charged by the Defendant were illegal and arbitrary. He would submit that Plaintiff was left with no option or alternative but to make the payment under the invoices to the Defendant since the Defendant insisted on payment of detention charges for seeking release of goods. He would submit that on 06.08.2019, Plaintiff wrote an e-mail to the Defendant intimating that the Custom Authority had issued the detention-cum-demurrage Certificate and requested to process refund of charges that were paid under protest. He would submit that Plaintiff has a good case in terms of Regulation 10 of the 2018 Regulations namely Sea Cargo Manifest and Transhipment Regulations, 2018 which notify that an authorized carrier shall not demand any containe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed by the Trial Court directing deposit of the amount of Rs. 18 lakhs as condition precedent to defend the Suit to Defendant's file Written Statement. 11. I have heard Mr. Mohammed, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. Fatterpekar, learned Advocate for the Respondent and with their able assistance considered the pleadings and record of the case. Submissions made by the learned Advocate has received due consideration of the Court. 12. At first blush, it would appear that in view of the detention-cum-demurrage Certificate dated 05.08.2019, once the imported goods were cleared and it was recommended for waiver of detention and demurrage charges, it would be wrongful for the Defendant to recover detention charges from the Plaintiff. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipping line i.e. M/s. Vasco Maritime Pte. Ltd., Singapore and thus acting as a carrier, executed the Bill of Lading. According to the Defendant's case, the containers which were provided for the import of the goods were required to be returned latest by 30.06.2019 on the expiry of the free detention period of 14 days at the Port of discharge. However, since the Plaintiff's cargo was put on hold by the Customs Authority for investigation, the Plaintiff continued using the containers beyond the free detention period for upto 48 days. Thus, admittedly the Plaintiff used and utilised the containers beyond the free detention period which is an admitted fact. In that view of the matter, the Defendant sought detention charges from Plaintiff for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
