http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2134 of 2006

PETITIONER: Forbes Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd

RESPONDENT: Board of Trustees, Port of Bombay

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/02/2008

BENCH: H.K. SEMA & MARKANDEY KATJU

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2134 OF 2006

H.K.SEMA,J

1.              This appeal is preferred by the second defendant in  the suit.                  Brief Facts: 2.              The appellant-defendant is a steamer agent of the  vessel S.S.President Madison.  The vessel was owned by a  foreign company by the name American President Lines Ltd.  One  M/s Metal Fabs India Pvt. Ltd. (First Defendant) was a  consignee  of seven cartons of ball bearings which landed in  the Port of Bombay on 5.2.1972 being carried by a vessel S.S.  President Madison.   The goods remained uncleared for a  period of over two months from the date of landing.  The Port  Trust of Bombay (plaintiff) by a letter dated 10.10.1974  addressed to the appellant requested to furnish the name and  address of the consignee.  As no reply was received from the  appellant, by a further letter dated 12.10.1974, the plaintiff  (respondent herein) served a notice of sale upon the appellant  with a request to issue the same to the ultimate consignee by  R.P.A.D.  As no action was taken, the respondent by its notice  dated 11.5.1975 informed the appellant that the goods were  lying uncleared in the warehouse and if the same were not  cleared within 10 days on payment of charges thereof, the  same would be sold in auction.   As no action was forthcoming  from the appellant despite notice and correspondences, as  stated above, the plaintiff/respondent sold the goods in a  public auction on 2.9.1976 and realized an amount of  Rs.62,000/- as sale proceeds.  The plaintiff found that after  deduction of the due amount such as port charges, custom  duty etc. an amount of Rs.4752/- was still due and payable to  them.

3.              The plaintiff filed R.C.S.No.2212/2911 of 1979 in  the Court of Small Causes at Bombay for recovery of the  aforesaid amount of Rs.4752/-. 4.              Defendant no.1 consignee did not contest the suit  though served.  However, on being served the appellant  (defendant No. 2) filed a written statement on 6.11.1979.  In  the written statement it was inter alia contended that  defendant no.2 has no liability to clear the landed goods and  that the second defendant was not concerned with the goods  remaining uncleared, as alleged.  It was further contended  that the plaintiff has been negligent in not auctioning the  goods immediately and waiting for four years before

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

completing the sale.  It was further claimed that the liability to  meet the claim of the plaintiff was only upon the consignee,  namely, defendant no.1.  It was further the case that   defendant no.2 was not the owner of the goods and, therefore,  defendant no.2 was not liable to pay the deficit in the sale  proceeds. 5.              Both the parties led evidence before the Trial Court  and also produced relevant materials.  The Trial Court after  perusing the documents and evidence on record and after  hearing the parties dismissed the suit against defendant no.2.   The appeal filed by the plaintiff before the full Court of Court  of Small Causes was allowed by the judgment and order dated  7.11.1989.  In the interregnum writ petition came to be filed.   A Special Leave Petition was filed before this Court and was  remanded by this Court with which we are not concerned.    6.              On the first blush since the amount towards the  storage charges was only to the extent of Rs.4752/- we  thought of dismissing the appeal with a question of law left  open. 7.              However, having regard to the questions of law of  public importance involving in this appeal, which are of a  recurring nature, the matter needs to be considered in depth. 8.              The questions of law of public importance in this  appeal are as follows:- 1.      Whether a steamer agent can be construed  as owner of the goods carried in his  principal’s vessel within the definition of  owner in relation to goods under Section  2(o) of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963?

2.      Whether a steamer agent at all can be made  liable for payment of storage  charges/demurrage, which are uncleared  by the consignee, even where steamer agent  has not issued delivery order?

3.      In the event a steamer agent is held liable,  to what extent he is liable and whether it  absolves the respondent from acting  promptly under Section 61 of 62 of the Act?     

9.              On behalf of the appellant, Mr. R. Venketeshwaran,  learned senior counsel, contended that the appellant was not  the owner of the goods within the meaning of Section 2(o) of the  Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 (in short the Act) and, therefore,  the appellant could not be made liable to pay any amount due  in respect of the goods.  In this connection, reliance has been  placed on the judgment rendered by a three-judge Bench of this  Court in the case of Trustees of the Port of Madras through  its Chairman      vs.    K.P.V. Sheikh Mohd. Rowther & Co.  Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 10 SCC 285, wherein this Court while  approving the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court  in M/s. K.P.V. Sheik Mohamed Rowthar   vs.  The Trustees  of Port of Madras, ILR (1975) Vol. 1 Madras 59 held that the  demurrage charges have to be collected by the Port Trust only  from the consignee and not from the steamer agent.  After  reading the aforesaid judgment, we doubted the correctness of  the said judgment and we are unable to persuade ourselves to  accept the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment of this  Court.    10.             Per contra Mr. T.R. Andhyarujina, learned senior  counsel, appearing for the respondent strenuously contended  that the issues involved in the present case are squarely

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

covered by the judgment rendered by a Constitution Bench of  this Court in the case of The Trustees of the Port of Madras  by its Chairman   vs.  K.P.V. Sheik Mohamed Rowther & Co.,  1963 Supp.(2) SCR 915.  11.          In that case it was held by this Court that the steamer  agent is liable to pay the charges.  It may be pointed out that  the said case was referred to before a three-judge Bench of this  Court in Trustees of the Port of Madras through its  Chairman (supra) and this Court distinguished the facts.  It  may also be pointed out here that the facts before the  Constitution Bench, in our view, did not relate to payment of  demurrage and it was for charges for shore labour ordered by  the steamer agents themselves.  Therefore, the decision  rendered by the Constitution Bench, in our view, is  distinguishable on facts with the facts of the present case.        12.          Since, we have doubted the correctness of the decision  rendered by a three-judge Bench of this Court in the case of  Trustees of the Port of Madras through its Chairman (supra)  and in view of the questions of law of public importance as  framed above, involved in this appeal, this appeal may be  referred to a larger bench, for an authoritative decision.  Let the  matter be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for  appropriate orders.