Sri Maharshi Shipping Private Limited And Anr vs. Sayama Prasad Mookerjee Port Kolkata And Ors

Facts

The petitioners, Sri Maharshi Shipping Private Limited and another, are challenging a demand notice issued by Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata, for an amount of Rs. 9 crore plus GST. This demand arises from a barge, NV Sohom-I, carrying the petitioners' cargo, which sank near the Kolkata Port's navigable channel on October 23, 2020. Despite appointing several salvagers, the salvage work remained incomplete. The petitioners paid a penalty of Rs. 5 lakh for non-removal. The Port Authorities issued a demand notice on June 10, 2023, directing the removal of the wreck within one month. The petitioners argue this was impossible due to the weather and that they have appointed new salvagers. They also contend the demand is premature, exorbitant, and that the Port Authorities denied permission for necessary blasting.

Held

The Court held that the demand notice issued by the Kolkata Port Authorities, dated June 10, 2023, prima facie satisfies the requirements of a notice under Section 14(1) of the Indian Ports Act, 1908. The petitioners' payment of a penalty for non-removal indicates their acknowledgment of the notice. Consequently, sub-sections (1A), (3), and (4) of Section 14 become applicable, making the expenses incurred by the conservator for removal payable. The Court found no occasion to hold that the Port Authorities acted outside their jurisdiction or contrary to law in making the claim, which is a precursor to a suit. The Court emphasized that it cannot interdict the process of law by precluding the Port Authorities from initiating appropriate proceedings for recovery. The Court explicitly stated it has not entered into the merits of the claims and counter-claims, leaving it open for the parties to agitate their contentions before the competent civil court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the demand notice issued by the Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata, for Rs. 9 crore plus GST is premature and exorbitant, considering the ongoing salvage efforts and alleged denial of permission for blasting by the petitioners? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 14 of the Indian Ports Act, 1908 and the principles of natural justice). Petitioner's arguments: The demand is premature as new salvagers have been appointed and are expected to complete the work within the fair-weather season. The Port Authorities allegedly denied permission for blasting, hindering salvage efforts. The amount claimed is exorbitant, and the petitioners have already incurred significant expenses. Revenue's (Kolkata Port Authorities) arguments: The demand notice is a prelude to a suit and cannot be interdicted by the writ court. Several opportunities were given to the petitioners to complete salvage work, but they failed despite appointing four salvagers. The fair-weather season is ending, and the uncompleted salvage is affecting navigation. Reliance is placed on Section 14 of the Indian Ports Act, 1908.