TMI Blog1983 (11) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stoms House Laboratory, the imported goods were auctioned by the Assistant Docks Manager, Sales Branch Office of the Trustees of Port of Bombay. The auction was held on November 24, 1976 and respondent No. 1 realised a sum of Rs. 55,000/- as sale proceeds. The auction was held under the provisions of Section 64A and 65 of the Bombay Port Trust Act, 1879. 2. The State Bank of India, Overseas Branch, Bombay, addressed a letter dated February 16, 1977 to the Assistant Docks Manager of respondent No. 1 requesting to pass the claim in respect of surplus, if available, after deduction of the amount due to the Port Trust from the amount of Rs. 55,000/- realised, and issue a cheque in favour of the State Bank in the account of the petitioner. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after applying the amount to the items specified in sub-section (1) of Section 63, have an amount of Rs. 27,192.67 available as surplus and the said amount is required to be paid by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner, who was the importer of the goods. Shri Shetye submits that the amount of surplus is denied to the petitioner solely on the ground that the application for receipt of surplus was not filed within the requisite period of six months. Shri Chinoy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, on the other hand submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the amount of surplus because the application was not filed within six months as required under sub-section (2) of Section 63 and in any event the present petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the demand could not have been made by the Bank without consent of the petitioner. Accordingly, the Bank was demanding the amount as the agent of the petitioner and as such demand was made within a period of six months, the requirement of sub-section (2) of Section 63 was more than satisfied. Shir Chinoy then submits that the sub-section demands that an application shall be made by the importer and therefore the application by the Bank could not be treated as valid. There is no merit in this submission. The requirement of making an application by the petitioner is only a procedural one and if the amount could be received by the Agent of the importer, then it would be difficult to imagine why the agent cannot make an application under sub- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no merit. In the first instance, the period of limitation has no application to the writ proceedings and this Court would be very slow in refusing the relief when justice is loaded on the side of the petitioner. Secondly, it is improper for the Port Trust to seek undue enrichment by raising such technical contention. Respondent No. 1 has no defence to the claim of the petitioner and it is not fair to defeat the claim on technicalities. In my judgment, this is a fit case in which this Court must exercise jurisdiction and grant relief to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, rule is made absolute and respondent No. 1 is directed to pay the amount of Rs. 27,192.67 to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. Respondent No. 1 shall p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
