http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF CALCUTTA & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: BOMBAY FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD. & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT07/10/1994

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. VENKATACHALA N. (J)

CITATION:  1995 AIR  577            1995 SCC  (2) 559  JT 1995 (1)    30        1994 SCALE  (4)896

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: ORDER 1.      Pursuant  to  the  Order passed  by  this  Court  on September  5,  1994  the  appellant  had  taken  substituted service, and served respondents by publishing ’Court Notice’ in  Hindustan Times Newspaper, New Delhi, Monday dated  19th September,  1994 (Annexure B) at page 115.  Although  nobody appears  for the respondents, notice must be deemed to  have been served on the respondents. 2.    Leave granted. 3.     This appeal by special leave arises from the order of Division  Bench of the Rajasthan High Court  dated  7.2.1994 made in Civil Appeal (Writ) No. 409 of 1992. 4.    The respondent had consignment of Rolling Mills in  63 cases, imported at the Port of Calcutta in October 1988  and got  unloaded  at  No. 3 shed, Netaji Subhas  Docks  of  the appellants  between October 11 to 17, 1988.  The  respondent No.  1 was required to obtain delivery of the goods  as  per the  prescribed  Scale of Rates but he failed to  have  them cleared  after  making  payment  of  demurrage.  He  made  a representation  on March 27, 1989 requesting the  appellants to  waive the port charges and release the goods. Since  the appellant  refused  to  do  so,  on  April  18,  1989,   the respondent  approached  the  District  Court  at  Bharatpur, Rajasthan  and  obtained an ex  parte  ad-interim  mandatory injunction  on 22nd April, 1989 directing the  appellant  to release  the goods within two days on payment of the sum  of Rs.  2,26,674.00 (Two lacs twenty six thousand, six  hundred and  seventy four only) being made while the respondent  was due in a sum of Rs. 7,37,400/- to the appellant. When the 31 appellant approached the High Court of  Rajasthan by way  of Civil Appeal (Writ),the High COurt dismissed the same. 5.      It is seen that the cause of action had  arisen   at Calcutta when the goods were imported and they were unloaded at     Shed No. 3, Netaji Subhas Docks of the appellant  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

the liability of payment had also arisen and on its  failure to  clear  the goods the respondent instituted the  suit  in District  Court  at  Bharatpur, Rajasthan. No  part  of  the cause  of action arose at Bharatpur. The appellant’s  office is  at Calcutta. Under s.20 CPC the only court competent  to take  cognizance of the action is the appropriate  court  at Calcutta. The order passed by the District Court,  Bharatpur in   the   suit  filed  by  the  respondent,    is   without jurisdiction and is void. when the appellant approached the High Court it has dismissed the case. Therefore High Court has committed manifest error of law in refusing to interface with such an abviously illigal and void order. Therefore, the impurgned order passed by the High Court of Rajasthan and district Court, Bharatpur are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs as none appears in the court. 35