Trustees of Port of Madras v. M/S. Nagavedu Lungi and Company and Ors.

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 L 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.

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.

j_ is the judgment and decree of dismissal of that appeal by which

It 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.

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 j

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 -1 Customs Act, for such goods illegally detained by the Customs Authorities,

the fact that they belonged to either the importer-consignee or exporter-consignor does not make any difference.

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.

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.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1519 of 1982.

From the Judgment and Order dated 1. 7. 77 of the Madras High Court in A.No. 494 of 1973.

G. Viswantha Iyer, S. Venkatswaran, Dr. Shankar Ghosh, S. Balak-rishnan, S. Prasad, Ms. Indu Malhotra, Ms. Ayasha Khatri, C.V.S. Rao, (NP), Rahul Dave, Arnn Kathpalia, R.A. Peromal, Amit Thoppar, Manoj Pillai for D.N. Gupta, H.K. Dutt (NP), Ranjan Mukherjee, AD. Sikri, E.R. Kumar, Ms. Shefali Faz! for P.H. Parekh, Mis. JBD & Co. (NP) and S.R.

Setia for the appearing parties.