G. Ramanujam, J. - (1.) This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the trustees of the Port Trust of Madras, the first Respondent herein, for recovery of Rs. 9,646.56 being demurrage charges, harbour dues, etc. from the appellant and the second Respondent herein for certain services rendered under Ss. 42 and 43 of the Madras Port Trust Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The first Defendant, the Appellant herein is the agent of the steamer State of Madras Which arrived at Madras Harbour on 7th November 1960. 21 Cases of art silk velvet under mark Mehara Nagapattinam consigned to the second Defendant, after unloading were taken charge and stored by the Plaintiff in its warehouse at the request of the first Defendant. The goods were ultimately not taken delivery of by the consignee but confiscated by the customs authorities on 24th March 1961 for infringement of customs regulations. For the services rendered to the goods under Sections42 and 43 of the Act by the Plaintiff from the date of its taking charge upto the date of the confiscation, it has levied charges at the prescribed rates. According to the Plaintiff, the aggregate amount payable for the services it had rendered to the goods came to Rs. 9,646.56, and the first Defendant as a person who entrusted the goods with the Plaintiff and the second Defendant as the consignee of the goods for whose benefit services were rendered, are liable to pay the same.
(2.) The first Defendant resisted the suit contending that the Port Trust took delivery of the goods on behalf of the consignee and not as the bailee of the steamer or its agents, that their liability ceases as soon as the goods had been placed at the quay side for delivery to the consignee, that neither of them is liable for the charges claimed, that the receipt issued by the Port Trust under Sec. 39 of the Act effects a termination of a the liability of the steamer and its agent in respect of the cargo that the Port Trust as a bailee of the consignee can claim the service charges only from the consignee and not from the steamer agent, and that in any event, it having acted as agent for a disclosed principal, the steamer, the Port Trust has to claim the same direct from its principal, the steamer.
(3.) The second Defendant contended that as the goods had been confiscated by the customs authorities as a consignee, it is not liable to pay the charges, that the failure to clear the consignment was not due to its negligence as it has been prevented from clearing the same by the customs authorities, that as the lien for the Port Trust charges on the goods is paramount the rights of the customs authorities can only be subject to the said lien, and that in any event, it is only the steamer or its agent who is liable to pay the charges.;