Full Judgment Text
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