S.C. Gupte, J. - (1.) This commercial appeal challenges an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this court on an interim application in a Sheriff's report filed in a commercial admiralty suit. The controversy concerns the bill of charges raised by the Appellant herein (original defendant No.2 and Respondent No.2 in the interim application), who is the Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai, for port dues and anchorage charges against Respondent No.1 herein (original Applicant), who is an auction purchaser of the defendant vessel. The parties to this appeal are hereinafter referred to by their nomenclature in the interim application out of which the present appeal arises.
(2.) The defendant vessel arrived within the port and harbour of Mumbai and was docked at Y1 anchorage on 23 March 2020. After 2 June 2020, it was shifted to Port Lighterage Anchorage and then, from 13 June 2020 onwards, it was at V1/Y anchorage. It remained at this anchorage by the time the vessel, originally arrested on the orders of the Admiralty Court, was ordered to be sold. The Applicant was the successful auction purchaser. The defendant vessel was sold on "as is where is" basis, but free of all encumbrances to the Applicant on 9 November 2020. The Applicant took its delivery on 11 November 2020 and caused the vessel to sail out on 20 November 2020. For the period between the date of delivery of its possession and till it sailed out (i.e. for 11 days), Respondent No.2 (MbPT) raised a bill inter alia for port dues and anchorage charges. The Applicant, being dissatisfied with the quantum of the charges, prayed for issuance of a rectified bill. In particular reference to the anchorage charges, it was the Applicant's case that the vessel was at the anchorage during the time of the Applicant's ownership only for a period of 11 days and for which MbPT could only have charged a rate applicable upto 30 days and not the rate applicable beyond 30 days. The learned Single Judge ordered rectification of the bill as claimed by the Applicant.
(3.) Briefly, the controversy may be stated thus : In exercise of powers under Sections 48, 49 and 50 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, Tariff Authority for Major Ports has issued a notification notifying inter alia scale of rates for major ports. Clause 2.15 of this notification provides for a schedule of anchorage fees. Any vessel or self propelled barge, except lash barge or dumb barge, remaining at any anchorage point shown in this schedule attracts anchorage fees in accordance with the rate shown in it. For anchorage point V1/Y, with which we are concerned in the present case, the rate per GRT (Gross Registered Tonnage) per hour or part thereof for a foreign going vessel is 0.0047 USD from first day onwards and upto 30 days. If the vessel is docked at such anchorage point for more than 30 days, the applicable rate beyond the 30th day is 0.0118 USD. In this case, the vessel was at V1/Y anchorage with effect from 13 June 2020. More than 30 days had already elapsed, since it was brought to this anchorage, by the time the vessel was sold under orders of this court and purchased by the Applicant under bill of sale dated 9 November 2020. At the time of its sale, the vessel was already paying anchorage fees at the rate applicable beyond 30th day. MbPT, accordingly, charged the Applicant for anchorage at the rate of 0.0118 USD per GRT, which was the applicable rate beyond 30th day. The Applicant disputes the rate applied on the ground that the vessel was at the concerned anchorage point at its instance only between 11 November 2020, when it obtained its possession and 20 November 2020 it caused the vessel to sail out of anchorage. MbPT, on the other hand, claims that the vessel being at the anchorage point for over 30 days, the applicable rate was the rate beyond 30th day, i.e. 0.0118 USD per GRT, and it is that rate which they have claimed in the bill raised on the Applicant. The learned Single Judge was called upon to decide which was the correct rate applicable for anchorage of the vessel as between 11 November 2020 and 20 November 2020. He ruled in favour of the rate applicable for upto 30 days.;