Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: the major port trusts act 1963 Page 1 of about 3,098 results (0.106 seconds)

Jun 13 2007 (HC)

The Principal Collector of Customs and the Union of India (Uoi) Throug ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2007(4)ALLMR477; 2008(1)BomCR494; 2007(6)MhLj225

..... the defendant no.2 had failed to clear the goods within the time specified. the action was taken under sections 61 and 62 of the major port trusts act, 1963. the authority which had to take the said action and who had actually taken the decision was the defendant no.1.14. paragraph 27 of ..... the said goods should be cleared within 10 days, otherwise the same would be sold under the provisions of sections 61 and 62 of the major port trusts act, 1963 on 20th august, 1990. a letter was addressed by the respondent no.1 to the respondent no.2 on 3rd september, 1990 informing that the ..... and was in breach of their statutory duties under the provisions of the major port trusts act, 1963 and/or the regulations of the ist defendant. the ist defendant, therefore, is not entitled to invoke the provision of section 120 of the major port trusts act, 1963. in any event, the plaintiff has given notice of the proposed suit ..... clearance or otherwise of the goods which were imported by the importers in this country and it was the duty of the 1st defendant to act upon such information accordingly. the plaint, however, nowhere discloses any duty having been cast in that regard under any statutory provision or agreement between ..... the year 1988, the respondent no.1 sought to import from u.s. and japan photographic machineries under tariff item no.98.01 of customs tariff act, 1975 and to have the items assessed under the 'project import scheme' and claimed concessional rate of duty on the said goods. in 1990, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 12 1982 (HC)

Board of Trustees of the Post of Bombay and ors. Vs. Sriyansh Knitters

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1983Bom88; 1983(2)BomCR185; (1982)84BOMLR509

..... to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing in support of the appeal, it would be convenient to trace the legislative history which led to the passing of the major port trust act, 1963, central act. no. xxii of 1855 was passed by the legislative council of india and received the assent of the governor-general on august 13, 1855. the legislation was enacted for ..... by the board only in acknowledgment of the fact that it has undertaken the services which are required to be performed under sub-section (1) of s. 42 of the major port trusts act, 1963. by consent of the parties, we have taken on record in this appeal a form of receipt issued by the board under sub-section (2) of s. 42 of ..... 14, 1979, under article 226 of the constitution of india. by these petitions, the respondents sought a declaration that the circular dated october 2, 1979, is ultra vires the major port trusts act, 1963 and in violation of articles 14, 19, 265 and 300a of the constitution of india. the respondents also sought a writ of prohibition restraining the appellants from taking any steps ..... accepted the submission advanced on behalf of the respondents that the rights available under s. 171 of the indian contract act , even assuming that there was contractual relationship between the port trust authorities and the consignee, are excluded by the provisions of the major port trusts act, 1963 as amended in the year 1975. it was further held that the bailment if created debtors the contract, then .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 29 2006 (HC)

Vidyt Metallics Ltd. and anr. Vs. Board of Trustees of the Port of Mum ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR2006Bom204; 2006(5)BomCR303

..... in so far as the contention of the petitioners is concerned that the claim of the petitioners is not considered under section 53 of the major port trust act, 1963, the same is required to be rejected. it is on record that even before the issuance of the detention certificate the case of the ..... as a consequence of the said guide-lines is not exhaustive and does not cover all categories and cases falling under section 53 of the major port trusts act, 1963. it has been thus contended that the authorities are bound to consider the case of the petitioners independent to the said guide-lines and ..... of exemption or remission of the demurrage charges in special cases for reasons to be recorded in writing. the provisions of section 53 of the major port trusts act, 1963 reads as under :53. a board may, in special cases and for reasons to be recorded in writing, exempt either wholly or partially any ..... decision and they have failed to exercise a power independent to the said policy decision which is vested in them under section 53 of the major port trusts act, 1963. it has been thus contended that the respondents order is liable to be quashed and set aside and the case of the petitioners is ..... demurrage and wharfage charges. the said order was passed on the application of the petitioners for remission in demurrage charges under section 53 of the major port trusts act, 1963. the petitioners thereafter applied for review of the said order dated 11.1.1997 passed by the respondent no. 1 but the same was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 01 2000 (HC)

The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs. Jayantilal Dharamsey a ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR2001Bom26; 2001(1)BomCR44; (2001)2BOMLR273

..... area of land of mumbai. with a view to develop the port, this land was made available to the port trust which was constituted under the bombay port trust act, 1879. after enactment of the major port trust act, 1963 and subsequent amendments thereto, the bombay port trust came to be governed by the major port trusts act, 1963. 5. however, one common feature running through the legislative history ..... relating to the constitution of the port trust is that the trust was sui juris and was ..... looking to the aims and objects of the major port trusts act, 1963 preceded by legislative history covering the period when the bombay port trust act itself was enacted in the 19th century the rent act can never cover the bombay port trust's properties. it was also with equal seriousness urged that the major port trusts act and its provisions taken in their totality should ..... may have been brought about or that may be brought about in future. for this reference was made to section 34 and section 111 of the major port trusts act. 1963. this stand in our opinion is quite fair and that will take care of the grievance of the intervenors.86. the western india oil distributing co .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 2005 (SC)

V.M. Salgaocar and Bros. Vs. Board of Trustees of Port of Mormugao and ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2005SC4138; 2005(5)BomCR374; JT2005(3)SC607; (2005)140PLR743; (2005)4SCC613

..... whether the suit is not maintainable for want of notice under section 120 of the major port trusts act, 1963?13. whether the suit is barred by the provisions of section 120 of the major port trusts act, 1963?15. whether the plaintiff proves that section 120 of the major port trusts act is not applicable, to this case and, if it is applicable, it is unconstitutional ..... government subject matter of disputes is under several different acts, such as excise act, customs act, income tax act, railways act, land acquisition act etc. many of these acts also contain provisions similar to, if not identical with the provisions of section 120 of the major port trusts act, 1963. therefore, the contention between a major port and government as a whole is totally fallacious.40. ..... provided for appeals and other applications and, therefore, providing relatively shorter period of six months for filing the suit under the provisions of section 120 of the major port trusts act, 1963 without a provision for condonation of delay, would make the section arbitrary, excessive, disproportionate and unreasonable restriction on the appellant's right under article 14 and ..... letter dated 12.04.1984 addressed by the appellant to the respondents could not be considered as a notice under section 120 of the act and that section 120 of the major port trust act, 1963 was constitutionally valid. the high court affirmed the judgment of the district judge regarding the legality and constitutional validity of section 120 and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 13 1998 (HC)

Seaways Shipping Ltd. Having Its Office at Ii Floor, Rahmat Manzil, 51 ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 1998(3)CTC318

..... to the extent of arguing that these regulations do not any more exist in view of the provisions of the major port trust act, 1963. the learned senior counsel points out that section 133 of the major port trusts act, 1963 has repealed the indian ports act, 1908 as also the madras port trust act, 1905 and, therefore, the regulations thereunder must be deemed to have been repealed. now it is difficult to accept the ..... shares in severalty, part owner, mortgagee, trustee, charterer, operator or manager of a ship.'the learned senior counsel has also taken me to the definition of the term 'owner' in major port trust act, 1963 which definition is as under: -'owner' (i) relation to goods, includes any consignor, consignee, shipper or agent for the sale, custody, loading or unloading of such goods; and (ii) in ..... and can be conveniently called as the business rivals. it is an undisputed position that the first respondent is a statutory body and is governed by the provisions of the major port trusts act, 1963 (hereinafter called '1963 act' for the sake of brevity). the whole controversy in the petitions revolves around two berths out of the total six berths at jawahar docks in chennai .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 25 2005 (HC)

Surana Industries Ltd. Vs. Good Earth Maritime Ltd., Owners of the Ves ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR2006Mad93; (2005)4MLJ375

..... major port trusts act, 1963 viz., giving notice to the respondent port trust at the time of the landing or before the landing of the cargo, and hence any lien stands forfeited for the purposed of section 60 of the ..... single judge ought not to have passed the impugned order, but should have held that the writ petitioner had no statutory lien over the cargo, and section 60 of the major port trusts act, 1963 does not confer any lien on the owner of the vessel. she further contended that the writ petitioner had not followed the statutory procedure contained under section 60 of the ..... to them by the petitioner, and on the contrary, allowed the consignees to remove part of the cargo already discharged in violation of their duty under section 60 of the major port trusts act, 1963.10. in paragraph 6 of the petitioner's affidavit it is alleged that in view of the invocation of maritime lien, it has become necessary for the petitioner to themselves ..... , it was only after a period of 25 days that the petitioner issued the notice under section 60 of the major port trusts act, 1963. even in that notice the petitioner did not specify the exact amount. hence, it is alleged that section 60 of the major port trusts act, 1963 is not attracted at all, and the present writ petition is devoid of merits.14. in paragraph 6 of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 24 1983 (HC)

Hamilton Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Board of Trustees of the Port of B ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1983Bom248; 1984(1)BomCR316

..... the defendants in their written statement have firstly submitted that the suit was barred by limitation under section 87 of the bombay port trust act, 1879 and/or section 120 of the major port trusts act, 1963 as amended by the major port trusts (amendment) act, 1974.12. the defendants stated that no responsibility attached to the defendants in respect of the goods in question after 7 days ..... of the plaintiffs in respect of the goods in the suit as required by section 87 of the bombay port trust act, 1897 and/or section 120 of the major port trusts act, 1963, as amended by the major port trusts (amendment) act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the said act). the defendants stated that for the reasons aforesaid, the suit was not maintainable and was liable to be ..... costs of the suit.2. in their plaint, the plaintiff have stated that they were a company registered under the companies act. the defendants were a statutory body incorporated under the major port trusts act, 1963 as amended, by the major port trusts (amendment) act, 1974. the plaintiffs imported from japan rubber plasticizers under their import licence no. pl 2683652 of 23-11-1973 though ..... well within time. i, therefore, answer the first issue in the negative and hold that the suit was not barred under section 120 of the major port trusts act, 1963 or under section 87 of the bombay port trust act, 1879.28. issue no. 2 ' issue no. 2 related to whether the plaintiff had not give a valid and proper notice to the defendants .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 13 1983 (HC)

Ram Ugrah Singh Girjarsingh and anr. Vs. Board of Trustees of the Port ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1983(2)BomCR447

..... is no generic difference between a tax and a fee; both are compulsory exactions of money by public authority.'10. i have already referred briefly to the provisions of the major port trusts act, 1963 under which the board has been empowered to raise money by way of rate. those rates are not necessarily equivalent to the value of the services rendered by the board ..... a local authority. it may be noted that prior to the coming into force of the major port trusts act, 1963, the bombay port which has been always a major port was managed by a board of trustees called the trustees of the port of bombay constituted under section 4 of the bombay port trusts act, 1879. that board was a body corporate having a perpetual succession and common seal. by the ..... be sued in the name of the trustees of the port of bombay. it was thus a body of trustees of a port.6. subsequently, parliament passed an act called 'the major port trusts act, 1963'. the present board of trustees of the port of bombay are admittedly constituted under section 3 of the major ports trusts act, 1963 and like the board under the act of 1879 the present board is also a body .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 07 1992 (HC)

Shri Francisco Almeida Vs. the Board of Trustees of the Port of Mormug ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1993(2)BomCR191

..... facts and events which have taken place. with the advent of the liberation of the territory of goa, the mormugao port was brought within the fold of the major port trusts act, 1963 which was made applicable as from 1st july, 1964. under the major port trusts act, 1963, the port administration is entitled to frame regulations in respect of various matters which broadly relate to activities in connection with the ..... vested in what is known as the board of trustees who are appointed by the central government from time-to-time under the very act, major port trusts act, 1963. the port has to be administered in accordance with the provisions of this act and needless to say therefore, that in matters connected therewith several regulations are required to be made. if from the point of view ..... in force were amended by virtue of notification no. m.p.t./3-g.a. (8)/76 dated 30th september, 1976, under chapter vi of the major port trusts act, 1963. alongwith such amendments the mormugao port regulations were also amended by virtue of notification no. m.p.t./10-g.a.-7/75 and after approval from the central government and duly published in ..... a power cannot be exercised by any of the officers of the state government and what is more by virtue of the provisions of the major port trusts act, 1963, such power has been expressly given and vested in the port administration, namely the board of trustees. it is therefore difficult to envisage how the petitioner still insists that he is entitled to carry on .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //