Supreme Court: Efflux Of Time Due To Systemic Delay & Not Laches On Part Of Litigant Is No Reason Not To Answer Question of Law

The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed against an Order whereby the High Court had permitted the first Respondent Mumbai Port Trust to withdraw the amount deposited in the Apex Court by the Petitioner alongwith accrued interest. The matter involved the liability of the appellant to pay the charges for removal of the wreck of a barge (‘Satyam’) belonging to the third respondent (M/s Shivam Engineers) which capsized while ferrying iron ore from the ship of the appellant to the port concerned.

The Division Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra said, “When on a purely legal issue, the appellant raised a legal objection, and also deposited the amount demanded by respondent no.1 in the High Court, in our considered view, the High Court was required to answer the question of law.”

Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi represented the Appellant while Advocate Abhishek Puri represented the Respondents.

Arguments

The Counsel for the Appellant drew the attention of this Court to the Notice/Communication issued by the then Deputy Conservator which specifically states that the power under Section 14(1)1 of the Indian Ports Act, 19082 was being exercised and the appellant (in its then avatar as ‘M/s Nippon Denro Ispat Ltd.’) was called upon ‘to deposit a sum Rs.70 lakhs as adequate security to ensure that the said wreck had been raised or removed within the stipulated period’. It was submitted that Section 14(1) of the Act places liability on the owner of the vessel concerned and, admittedly, in the present position, the owner of the vessel was t respondent no.3 and not the appellant.

It was the case of the Respondent that the High Court merely closed the issue as 20 years had passed and the wreckage had already been cleared.

Reasoning

Finding merit in the submissions of the appellants, the Bench said, “The way the High Court approached the issue appears to be erroneous for the simple reason that the lis was very much alive, as a pure question of law stood raised i.e., on whom the liability for clearing the wreckage was to be fastened. The Impugned Order has not dealt with this fundamental issue.”

“In this analysis, no exercise was required involving disputed factual questions. Moreover, the efflux of time is a result of systemic delay, not due to any laches on the part of the appellant”, it added.

Referring to the Judgments in BS Hari Commandant v Union of India (2023) and Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference (2023), the Bench said, “Our view on the aspects of (a) lapse of time alone not being a ground to close the matter, and (b) adjudicating a petition under Article 226 when it does not really involve a disputed factual setting, finds support from the decisions of this Court…”

Setting aside the impugned order, the Bench revived the Writ Petition. “The matter is remanded to the High Court to consider all issues on merits as raised in the writ petition. As the monies deposited by the appellant are stated to have already been withdrawn by respondent no.1, were the appellant to eventually succeed in the writ petition, the appellant would be suitably compensated on this score.”

“Having regard to the fact that the writ petition is of the year 1996, we request the High Court to give priority to the matter and dispose it of as expeditiously as possible”, it concluded.

Cause Title: JSW Steel Ltd. v. The Board of Trustees of the Mumbai Port Trust Mumbai & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 257)

Appearance:

Appellants: Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, Advocates Mahesh Agarwal, Rishi Agrawala, Aanchal Mullick, Kamakshi Sehgal, Rohan Sharma, AOR E. C. Agrawala

Respondents: Advocates Abhishek Puri, Surbhi Gupta, Sahil Grewal, Reeta Dewan Puri, AOR P. N. Puri, AOR Apoorv Shukla, Advocates Puneet Chahar, Prabhleen A. Shukla

Click here to read/download Order