Supreme Court of India
TRUSTEES OF PORT OF MADRAS versus M/S. NAGAVEDU LUNGI AND COMPANY AND ORS.
- Decided
- 21 April 1995
- Judges listed
- KULDIP SINGH
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [1995] 3 S.C.R. 669 · 1995 INSC 287
- Also cited as
- (1995) 3 SCC 730
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
- Not shown
- 1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
VENKATACHALA, J. The appellant was tbe plaintiff in suit · O.S. No. 3980/69 in City Civil Court at Madras, while respondents-1 to 5 were defendants-I to 5 therein. That suit had been instituted by the plaintiff-the trustees of Port of Madras against the defendants for recovery of demur· rage charges and other incidental charges in respect of certain textile goods in tbeir custody in tbe customs area of the Port of Madras. Defendant-I was tbe consignor-exporter of those goods. Defendant-2 was tbe shipping agent who had to put those goods on board tbe ship for their export. Defendant-5 is the alleged successor of defendant-2 firm. Defendant-4 is the Collector of Customs who, on behalf of the Union of India, defendant-3 was responsible for illegal detention of the goods in tbe customs area of the Port of Madras giving rise to the claim for demurrage charges and other incidental charges by the plaintiff.
p. 670, margin D
The City Civil Court dismissed tbe suit against all the defendants as in its view consignor • exporter of those goods could not be held liable for demurrage charges and incidental charges payable for those goods when they had been illegally detained in; the customs area of the Port of Madras by respondent· 4, purporting to exercise his powers under Customs Act. The plaintiff questioned the correctness uf that judgment and decree of the City Civil Court, dismissing its suit against all the defendants, by presenting an appeal therefrom before the High Court of Madras in Appeal No. 494n3. But, that appeal was also dismissed.
pp. 670–671, margin F
It is the judgment and decree of dismissal of that appeal by which the judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit by the City Civil Court is affirmed, which is appealed against in this Court in the present appeal of the plaintiff.
p. 671, margin A
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties in the appeal. A three Judge Bench of this Court in International Airports Authority of India v. Mis. Grand Slam International & Ors., [1995] 1 SCALE 859, has ruled that the · importer- consignee of goods cannot avoid his liability to pay deil)urrage charges and other incidental charges in respect of its goods illegally· detained in the customs area of the Airport by the Customs Authorities under the Customs Act. The said ruling of this Court as regards liability for demurrage charges and other incidental charges by importer-consignee of goods illegally detained in the customs area of the Airport by the Customs Authorities applies to the liability to pay demurrage charges or incidental charges by the exporter-consignor of goods illegally detained in the customs area of the sea-port by the Customs Authorities under the Customs Act, for such goods illegally detained by the Customs Authorities, the fact that they belonged to either the importer-consignee or exporterconsignor does not make any difference.
p. 671, margin B
In the said view of the matter, the judgments and decrees under appeal are liable to be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff calls to be decreed against exporter-consignor, defendant-1.
p. 671, margin E
In the result, we allow. this appeal, set aside the judgments and decrees of the courts below and decree the suit O.S. 3980/69 against defendant-1 as prayed for, with costs. T.N.A. Appeal allowed.
p. 671, margin E