{"id":82526,"date":"2006-05-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-05-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-the-trustees-port-of-vs-efclon-tie-up-pvt-ltd-ors-on-8-may-2006"},"modified":"2017-05-10T07:48:44","modified_gmt":"2017-05-10T02:18:44","slug":"board-of-the-trustees-port-of-vs-efclon-tie-up-pvt-ltd-ors-on-8-may-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-the-trustees-port-of-vs-efclon-tie-up-pvt-ltd-ors-on-8-may-2006","title":{"rendered":"Board Of The Trustees, Port Of … vs Efclon Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 8 May, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Board Of The Trustees, Port Of … vs Efclon Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 8 May, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: . A Lakshmanan<\/div>\n
Bench: H.K. Sema, Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2528 of 2006\n\nPETITIONER:\nBoard of the Trustees, Port of Kolkata\n\nRESPONDENT:\nEfclon Tie-up Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/05\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nH.K. Sema & Dr. AR. Lakshmanan\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\n(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 571\/2005)<\/p>\n
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
This appeal was directed against the final judgment and
\nOrder dated 01.12.2004 passed by the Division Bench of the
\nHigh Court at Calcutta in ACO No. 87 of 2003 in APOT No. 318 of
\n1998 whereby the High Court allowed the claim of the
\nrespondents herein.\n<\/p>\n
The brief facts of the case are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
An indenture of lease was entered into by Das
\nReprographics (in short ‘the Company’) and the Kolkata Port
\nTrust (in short ‘Port Trust’) in respect of premises at P-10,
\nTaratola Road, Kolkata. The lease deed stipulated that, the lease
\nis for a period of 29 years, 1 month and 25 days, w.e.f November
\n28, 1962 on a monthly rental basis of Rs. 1,049.12. It was stated
\nin the deed that, the lessee may have the option of a fresh lease
\nfor a further term of 30 years provided a notice stating the same
\nwas given to the Port Trust at least six months before expiration
\nof subsisting lease. According to the deed, the Municipal Taxes in
\nrespect of the land was to be paid by the Company.  The Port
\nTrust had the option of renewing the lease for such further
\nperiod, provided the covenant conditions are duly performed and
\nthe increase in rent is upto 25%, but not exceeding the rent as
\nper the ‘Schedule of Rates’.\n<\/p>\n
It was also clearly stipulated in the Lease deed that, if the
\ncompany goes into liquidation or is wound up compulsorily or
\nvoluntarily, the Port Trust would re-enter possession and the
\nlease would be brought to an end.\n<\/p>\n
On 01.08.1991, a letter was written by the Company to the
\nPort Trust requesting the appellant for considering the renewal of
\nthe lease executed in their favour in 1962 for another term of 30
\nyears.  It was also stated in the letter that, the company has
\nrental dues and municipal taxes to be paid which they will clear
\nbefore the expiry of the lease which was subsisting. The Port
\nTrust however, did not respond to this letter. Later on
\n26.11.1991, another letter was sent by the company to the Port
\nTrust requesting for the extension of the lease of the land. The
\nlease deed expired on 22.01.1992 by efflux of time. The company
\nhad not even then, paid of their outstanding dues, thereby was
\nstill in breach of the stipulations in the lease deed.\n<\/p>\n
On 07.03.1992, the Port Trust informed the company that a
\ntotal sum of Rs.66,312\/- was outstanding towards rent and taxes
\nincluding 15% interest and this should be cleared before any
\nextension of lease could be considered. However, by taking into
\nconsideration the fact of a large number of workmen working in
\nthe company, the Port Trust asked the company to correct its
\nbreaches so that the extension of lease could be considered.\n<\/p>\n
On 21.12.1994, by an order in Company Petition
\nNo.151\/1986, the High Court of Calcutta, directed to take
\npossession of the assets of the company forthwith. By an order
\ndated 27.08.1997, invitation for offers for purchasing the assets
\nof the liquidated company was made. Various advertisements
\nwere issued as per the order of the High Court after which many
\noffers were made by different parties.\n<\/p>\n
The High Court accepted the offer made by the present
\nrespondent No. 1(Efclon) by an Order dated 16.01.1998, for Rs.
\n50 lakhs and also on an agreement made by the respondent with
\nthe workmen of the liquidated company to re-employ them.\n<\/p>\n
Aggrieved by this order of the High Court, United Bank of
\nIndia filed an appeal in the High Court on the ground that the
\nsale of assets of the company was conducted with undue haste
\nand without trying to ensure that the maximum price was
\nfetched for the assets of the company.  The Division Bench held
\non 09.04.2003, that, the finding of the learned single Judge was
\ncorrect and thereby confirmed the sale of all the assets of the
\ncompany at, P-10, Taratolla Road, Kolkata. The Division Bench
\nalso observed that the lease over the land had expired and since
\nthe purchaser, Efclon, does not intend to destroy the character of
\nthe factory, it would be desirable that the Port Trust should grant
\na fresh lease of the Taratola land which has expired in favour of
\nrespondent No.1 (Efclon). On 11.08.2003, an application was
\nmade by the respondents in the High Court, for the modification
\nof the order of the Division Bench dated 09.04.2003, stating that,
\nthe option of renewal has been found to be validly exercised by
\nthe liquidated company and therefore, the Port Trust had no
\noption but to renew the lease in terms of the indenture of lease
\nwhich existed between the liquidated company and the Port
\nTrust.\n<\/p>\n
The High Court while deciding on this matter on
\n01.12.2004, allowed the claim of the respondents and thereby
\nordered the Port Trust that, upon the respondent clearing all the
\noutstanding rental dues and taxes, the Port Trust shall grant
\nfresh lease in consonance with the lease indenture that existed
\nbetween the Port Trust and Das Reprographics.\n<\/p>\n
The present appeal before this Court is preferred against
\nthis order dated 01.12.2002 of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
We heard Mr. T.R. Andhyarujina, learned Senior Counsel,
\nappearing for the appellants and Mr. U.U.Lalit, learned Senior
\nCounsel, appearing for the respondents and Mr. Vijay Hansaria,
\nlearned Senior Counsel appearing for the workmen.\n<\/p>\n
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant
\nsubmitted that, the question of renewal of lease deed could not
\narise owing to the fact that the option to renew the lease was not
\nvalidly exercised by the Company in liquidation as the Company
\nwas in breach of various terms and conditions of the indenture of
\nlease by having outstanding rental dues and municipal taxes.\n<\/p>\n
Also the lease deed provided that, if the company (Das
\nReprographics) was either voluntarily or compulsorily wound up,
\nthe lease deed would be brought to an end. Here since the
\ncompany has been wound up, the lease is presumed to have
\ncome to an end and therefore, the question of granting extension
\nof lease would not arise.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant further submitted that respondent No.1
\n(Efclon) is only the owner of the assets of the Liquidated
\nCompany which includes fixtures and furnitures.  Therefore, they
\ncould exercise their rights only over the assets of the company
\nand not on the land which is the property of the Port Trust. Also
\nsince the lease had come to an end, the company has absolutely
\nno right over the property in question.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Andhyarujina, submitted that the Port Trust after the
\norder of the High Court has agreed to grant a fresh lease to the
\ncompany, as per the prevailing rates in Schedule of rates of the
\nPort Trust which are based not on profiteering, but on
\ninflationary tendencies. But the High Court granted fresh lease at
\nthe rates prescribed under the lease deed which was drawn in
\n1962 which is not fair.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. U.U.Lalit, learned senior advocate for the respondents
\nsubmitted referring to the letters written by the company and the
\nPort Trust that the correspondence would indicate that the
\ncompany did exercise their option to renew the lease in the
\nprocedure mentioned in the lease and also the letter by the Port
\nTrust reveals that, it was not the intention of the Kolkata Port
\nTrust to terminate the lease but to grant a fresh lease to the
\nlessee upon payment of the balance dues.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.U.U.Lalit submitted that, the respondent after acquiring
\nthe assets of the company entered into a contract with the
\nemployees of the liquidated company for re-employing them,
\nclearly shows that the sole object of the respondent was to revive
\nand rehabilitate its units and to reemploy its workmen.\n<\/p>\n
It was further contented by the respondents that renewal of
\nthe lease must be from the date of expiry of the original lease,
\nand also that the amount should be in accordance to what was
\nprescribed in the original lease deed between the Port Trust and
\nDas Reprographics.\n<\/p>\n
Another submission made by the respondent was that, if
\nDas Reprographics had not gone into liquidation, while renewing
\nthe lease, the company would have only had to pay 25% over and
\nabove the last rent paid under the original lease for the period of
\nrenewal of the same. The Kolkata Port Trust is now demanding
\nrent at its scheduled rates for a fresh grant of lease which is
\nthree times than the last rent, which will make it impossible for
\nthe respondents to reopen the closed units of the company or to
\nreemploy its workmen.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for
\nthe workmen submitted that the Port Trust has no right to refuse
\nformal renewal of the lease, particularly with the knowledge that
\nthe livelihood of a large number of people are dependant on it.
\nAlso that the Port Trust, by allowing the erstwhile lessee to
\ncontinue to occupy the property even after the expiry of the
\noriginal terms of the lease and thereby renewed the lease by
\nconduct.\n<\/p>\n
We heard all the parties extensively and also went through
\nthe documents placed before us.  The issues in this case that
\ndeserve discussion according to us is whether:
\n?\tThe respondent No.1 (Efclon) due to the fact of them having
\nbought over the assets of the company that was liquidated
\ncould exercise right over the property (land) which the Port
\nTrust had by an indenture of lease, leased to the liquidated
\ncompany (Das Reprographics)?\n<\/p>\n
?\tWhether the high Court was correct in granting a fresh
\nlease to the respondent No.1 (Efclon) on the terms specified
\nin the original indenture of lease between the Port Trust and
\nthe liquidated company (Das Reprographics)?
\nIn other words, the question we are really concerned
\nwith now is whether a fresh lease should be granted on the
\nbasis of the rates as subsisting according to the schedule to
\nthe major Port Trust or whether a fresh lease or whether a
\nfresh lease could be allowed to be executed on the terms
\nand conditions as were existing in the earlier lease.\n<\/p>\n
The lease could not be granted to respondent No.1  Efclon Tie-
\nup Private Limited for the following reasons:-\n<\/p>\n
1.\tThe option to renew the lease was not validly exercised by
\nthe Company in liquidation.  The Company was in breach
\nof various terms and conditions of the indenture of the
\nlease, inter alia, relating to non-payment of rent,
\nmunicipal taxes, unauthorized construction of land in
\nquestion etc.;\n<\/p>\n
2.\tM\/s Efclon Tie-up Private Limited were the auction
\npurchasers of only the assets of the company (fixtures
\nand furnitures) lying, inter alia, in the premises in
\nquestion.  It was incorrect to assume that a further right
\nto renew the lease deed vested in M\/s Efclon Tie-up
\nPrivate Limited;\n<\/p>\n
3.\tM\/s Efclon Tie-up Private Limited were not the
\nsuccessors in interest of the Company in liquidation qua
\nthe right to renew the lease deed;\n<\/p>\n
4.\tIt was the admitted position that the lease deed came to
\nan end in 1992 and no renewal was granted thereon,
\nparticularly, since the right to grant renewal was in the
\ndiscretion of the Port Trust, such discretion existed even
\nif the terms and conditions of the indenture of the lease
\nhad not been breached by the Company in liquidation;\n<\/p>\n
5.\tIn all fairness the Port Trust had agreed to the grant of a
\nfresh lease to M\/s Efclon Tie-up Private Limited as per
\nthe prevailing rates in the schedule of rates in the Port
\nTrust which was unacceptable to the said Company
\nwhich wanted renewal at the rates prescribed in the lease
\ndeed.\n<\/p>\n
The High Court ought to have seen that the schedule of rent
\nchanges on the basis of the economic condition that is prevailing
\nat a given point of time in every economy. Therefore, the rent that
\nis demanded by the Port Trust from Efclon now is absolutely fair
\nand reasonable and the schedule of rent changes has been
\ndeclared valid by the Calcutta High Court.\n<\/p>\n
The High Court should have seen that, in any case, the
\nindenture of lease clearly provided that if the Company in
\nliquidation M.L. Das Reprographics was either voluntarily or
\ncompulsorily wound up, then the lease deed would be brought to
\nan end.  In that case, of course, no question of granting
\nextension of the lease deed would arise.  Even if it is assumed
\nthat the extension of lease was to be granted from 1992 onwards
\nthe lease deed itself would automatically have come to an end by
\noperation of the express terms of the indenture of lease.\n<\/p>\n
The lease granted in 1964 did not provide renewal as a
\nmatter of right and, in fact, the lease ended by efflux of time on
\n22.01.1992 whereupon no extension was given.  The option for
\nrenewal of lease was not given to the respondent No.3 Company
\nbut was given to the Port Trust.  The Port Trust had agreed in
\nfairness to execute a fresh lease deed with respondent No.1.  The
\nrent would not be the market rent and, in fact, would be in
\nconsonance with the schedule of rates framed under the Major
\nPort Trust Act, which have the prior approval of the Central
\nGovernment.\n<\/p>\n
It is also relevant to note that respondent No.1 had
\npurchased the assets of the Company in liquidation excluding
\nthe land belonging to the Port Trust.\n<\/p>\n
We are of the opinion that:\n<\/p>\n
1.\tThere is no right over the property of the Port Trust
\nexisting with the respondent No.1 (Efclon) as claimed by
\nthem. In the present case only the assets of the company
\nwhich was liquidated has been bought by the respondents,
\nthe land belonged to the Port Trust. Even according to the
\noriginal indenture of lease between the Port Trust and the
\nliquidated company, there were clauses which very clearly
\nstated that, the Port Trust had the option of renewing the
\nlease for such further period, provided the covenant
\nconditions are duly performed. It was also clearly
\nstipulated in the Lease deed that, if the company goes into
\nliquidation or is wound up compulsorily or voluntarily, the
\nPort Trust would re-enter possession and the lease would
\nbe brought to an end. In the present fact situation, the
\ncompany in liquidation was clearly in breach of the
\ncovenant conditions by having outstanding rental dues
\nand tax liability with interest. Also the company did go into
\nliquidation and therefore as the lease indenture says, the
\noriginal lease has come to an end and the Port Trust is
\npresumed to have automatically come into possession of
\nthe land in question.\n<\/p>\n
     Therefore we hold that, there is no lease that is subsisting
\nbetween the Port Trust and the liquidated company and
\nhence the respondent No.1 (Efclon) claim that the original
\nlease deed is subsisting thereby giving them an automatic
\nright to the land in question is untenable and has no
\nmerit.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tTo the question as to whether the High Court was correct
\nin granting a fresh lease to the respondent No.1 (Efclon) in
\naccordance with the clause stipulated in the original lease
\nagreement, we are of the opinion that the High Court is
\ncorrect as far as the grant of fresh lease is concerned.
\nComing to the second part of the question as to whether
\nthe rental amount should be based on the stipulation
\nmentioned in original lease deed is concerned; we believe
\nthat the rates that are present in the current Schedule of
\nthe Port Trust Act in Kolkata should apply. We are of the
\nview that, the claim of the respondent that they should be
\nallowed to pay the rates in accordance to the clause in the
\noriginal lease indenture of 1962 is not fair on the Port
\nTrust. Also we are satisfied that the prices that are
\nprevalent in the schedules of the Port Trust Act are not
\nbased on profiteering, but on inflationary tendencies.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tWith regard to the respondent No.1’s (Efclon) claim of, if
\nDas Reprographics had not gone into liquidation, while
\nrenewing the lease, the company would have only had to
\npay 25% over and above the last rent paid under the
\noriginal lease for the period of renewal of the same, does
\nnot hold good in our view, as such a renewal need not be
\ncontemplated at this point, as the company itself is not in
\nexistence and also the clause in the original lease
\nindenture will come in the way which specifically mentions
\nthat if the company goes into liquidation or is wound up
\ncompulsorily or voluntarily, the Port Trust would re-enter
\npossession and the lease would be brought to an end.
\nThe larger interest of the workmen was canvassed by Mr.
\nVijay Hansaria and also by respondent No.1 for its own
\ncommercial purposes.  The interest of workmen can be met by
\nthe Port Trust’s willingness to grant a fresh lease of the premises
\nnot at the market rate but at the rate prescribed in the schedule
\nframed under the major Port Trust Act.\n<\/p>\n
It has now brought to our notice that respondent No.1 who
\nare continuing in possession are now inducting the third parties
\nand seeking to alienate the property to them.  In these
\ncircumstances, I.A. No.3 of 2006 was filed by the Port Trust to
\ndirect respondent No.1 to handover possession of the property to
\nthe Port Trust.  In these circumstances, a contention was also
\nraised by the Port Trust that they were not required to execute
\nthe lease deed in favour of respondent No.1.\n<\/p>\n
The fact remains that respondent No.1 Company remained
\nin possession of the property.  It has now come to the knowledge
\nof the Port Trust that despite the fact that no right over the
\nproperty existed in favour of respondent No.1.  They are not only
\ncarrying out unauthorized constructions in the premises but
\nhave also parted with the possession to various individuals and
\ncompanies not connected with their own business and are
\ncreating third party rights.  Such construction and part of the
\npossession is not only impermissible in view of the order of stay
\ngranted by this Court but in any event was not even permitted
\nunder the lease of 1964.\n<\/p>\n
We cannot also, at the same time, close our eyes to the
\nrealities.  We have, therefore, to safeguard the interest of the Port
\nTrust, the interest of the first respondent and the workmen by
\none stroke of pen.  The trade unions has applied for intervention
\nand is represented by Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned senior counsel
\nwhich has a large number of membership of workers working in
\nDas Reprographics Ltd. (in liquidation).  Much water has flown
\nafter the order of liquidation of respondent No.3 Company.  Any
\nadverse orders passed by this Court, at this stage, would affect
\nthe right and interest of the members of the union.  The
\nCompany was directed to be wound up and the Official
\nLiquidator was directed to take charge of the assets and
\nproperties.  The assets and properties thereof were put up for
\nsale in terms of a sale notice made and published on 05.09.1997.
\nIn these circumstances, in an attempt to protect the livelihood of
\nits members, the union entered into an agreement with
\nrespondent No.1 providing, inter alia, that respondent No.1
\nwould take necessary steps in Court to purchase the assets and
\nproperties of the Company and also would assure employment to
\nall the eligible workers of the Company in phase-wise manner.
\nThere are other conditions with which we are not now concerned.
\nIn terms of the commitment made, respondent No.1 participated
\nin the sale of the assets and properties of the Company and was
\ndeclared the successful purchaser in respect thereof by an order
\ndated 16.01.1989.  Several other proceedings were taken by both
\nthe parties with which also we are not concerned.  It is stated
\nthat in terms of the order, respondent No.1 has made payment of
\nthe entire consideration to the Official Liquidator.  The intention
\nof the High Court while passing the orders dated 16.01.1998 and
\n09.04.2003 is manifest from the fact that while confirming the
\norder dated 16.01.1998 for sale of the assets and properties of
\nthe Company, the High Court made the same free from
\nencumbrances and without any liabilities on account of any
\nother dues.  With the revival and rehabilitation of the Company
\nin mind, the High Court directed that the properties where the
\nfactories of the Company are situate be provided to respondent
\nNo.1.  The High Court also directed that a fresh lease in respect
\nthereof be granted to Respondent No.1 presently in possession of
\nthe factory premises.  Respondent No.1 is also in possession of
\nthe assets and properties located therein.  It is also not in
\ndispute that respondent No.1 is not operating the factory for
\nwant of former renewal of the lease.  As a result, the right of the
\nmembers of the workers of the union has been put in jeopardy.
\nThe Port Trust itself allowed the erstwhile lessee to continue to
\noccupy the property even after the expiry of the original terms of
\nthe lease.\n<\/p>\n
In our view, the workmen of the Company have a right to
\nearn their livelihood.  The workmen are as such vitally interested
\nin the renewal of the lease in respect of the property in question.
\nThe Port Trust, by its conduct, accepted the right of the Company
\nto obtain renewal of the lease.  The Port Trust has never called
\nupon the Company or the official liquidator to vacate the
\nproperty. The act of the Port Trust in allowing the respondent to
\ncontinue is only a benevolent act of the Port Trust keeping in
\nview the consequences that can arise if this was not allowed for
\nthe large number of workmen of the company.  As such, the lease
\nof the property has been renewed or must be deemed to have
\nbeen renewed as the workmen being interested in the renewal of
\nthe lease of the property.  They were also heard through their
\nsenior counsel.\n<\/p>\n
Social justice demands that the lease in respect of the factory
\npremises be renewed by the Port Trust in favour of respondent
\nNo.1 so that the operation of the factory thereof can be
\ncommenced.  However, the lease can be renewed only subject to
\nthe payment of all the arrears and dues together with interest.
\nWe are, therefore, inclined in the larger interest of the industry
\nas also the workmen and of the Port Trust to direct the Port
\nTrust to grant a fresh lease to respondent No.1 herein subject to
\nthe respondent No.1 complying with the terms relating to the
\npayment of the arrears\/dues together with interest at the rate of
\n15% p.a. as suggested by the Kolkata Port Trust in its letters
\ndated 07.03.1992 and 13.04.1995.  The Port Trust shall also
\ngrant a fresh lease in favour of respondent No.1 on the basis of
\nthe scheduled rate from the date of possession i.e. 04.08.2003.\n<\/p>\n
In conclusion, we order a fresh lease indenture to be drawn
\nfrom the date the company came into possession of the land
\n(i.e.04.08.2003) between the Port Trust and the Respondent No.1
\n(Efclon) with regard to the premises situated at P-10, Taratola
\nRoad, Kolkata at the rental rates contained in the present
\nSchedule of the Kolkata Port Trust Act as soon as the dues of the
\nliquidated company are discharged with by the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
We are, therefore, directing the Port Trust to inform the
\nEfclon Tie-up Private Limited; respondent No.1 herein of the
\nrental arrears together with interest as suggested by the Port
\nTrust in its letters dated 07.03.1992 and 13.04.1995 within four
\nweeks from the date of this order.  In other words, the Port Trust
\nshall inform the first respondent herein of the rental arrears from
\nthe date of expiry of the earlier lease (21.01.1992) till the date of
\nthe execution of the fresh lease at the old rate together with
\ninterest at the rate of 15% p.a. within 4 weeks from the date and
\nupon such intimation the said dues are to be cleared by the first
\nrespondent within 2 weeks thereafter and upon such dues being
\ncleared, the Port Trust shall grant a fresh lease from 04.08.2003
\ni.e. the date on which the first respondent was to be in
\npossession of the property by the official liquidator on the basis
\nof the scheduled rate as now prevalent.  The rate fixed by the
\nKolkata Port Trust as per the scheduled rate will be effective from
\n04.08.2003.  We are inclined to grant the lease in favour of the
\nrespondent No.1 who sought renewal of the lease with the sole
\nobject of reviving and rehabilitating its units and to re-employ its
\nworkmen thereof.\n<\/p>\n
In the result, the civil appeal stands allowed.  However, there
\nshall be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Board Of The Trustees, Port Of … vs Efclon Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 8 May, 2006 Author: . A Lakshmanan Bench: H.K. Sema, Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2528 of 2006 PETITIONER: Board of the Trustees, Port of Kolkata RESPONDENT: Efclon Tie-up Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. DATE […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-82526","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBoard Of The Trustees, Port Of ... vs Efclon Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 8 May, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-the-trustees-port-of-vs-efclon-tie-up-pvt-ltd-ors-on-8-may-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Board Of The Trustees, Port Of ... vs Efclon Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 8 May, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-the-trustees-port-of-vs-efclon-tie-up-pvt-ltd-ors-on-8-may-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-05-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-10T02:18:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/board-of-the-trustees-port-of-vs-efclon-tie-up-pvt-ltd-ors-on-8-may-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/board-of-the-trustees-port-of-vs-efclon-tie-up-pvt-ltd-ors-on-8-may-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Board Of The Trustees, Port Of … vs Efclon Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 8 May, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-05-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-10T02:18:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/board-of-the-trustees-port-of-vs-efclon-tie-up-pvt-ltd-ors-on-8-may-2006\"},\"wordCount\":4141,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/board-of-the-trustees-port-of-vs-efclon-tie-up-pvt-ltd-ors-on-8-may-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/board-of-the-trustees-port-of-vs-efclon-tie-up-pvt-ltd-ors-on-8-may-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/board-of-the-trustees-port-of-vs-efclon-tie-up-pvt-ltd-ors-on-8-may-2006\",\"name\":\"Board Of The Trustees, Port Of ... vs Efclon Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 8 May, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-05-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-10T02:18:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/board-of-the-trustees-port-of-vs-efclon-tie-up-pvt-ltd-ors-on-8-may-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/board-of-the-trustees-port-of-vs-efclon-tie-up-pvt-ltd-ors-on-8-may-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/board-of-the-trustees-port-of-vs-efclon-tie-up-pvt-ltd-ors-on-8-may-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Board Of The Trustees, Port Of … vs Efclon Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 8 May, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Board Of The Trustees, Port Of ... vs Efclon Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 8 May, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-the-trustees-port-of-vs-efclon-tie-up-pvt-ltd-ors-on-8-may-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Board Of The Trustees, Port Of ... vs Efclon Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 8 May, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-the-trustees-port-of-vs-efclon-tie-up-pvt-ltd-ors-on-8-may-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-05-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-10T02:18:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-the-trustees-port-of-vs-efclon-tie-up-pvt-ltd-ors-on-8-may-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-the-trustees-port-of-vs-efclon-tie-up-pvt-ltd-ors-on-8-may-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Board Of The Trustees, Port Of … vs Efclon Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 8 May, 2006","datePublished":"2006-05-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-10T02:18:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-the-trustees-port-of-vs-efclon-tie-up-pvt-ltd-ors-on-8-may-2006"},"wordCount":4141,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-the-trustees-port-of-vs-efclon-tie-up-pvt-ltd-ors-on-8-may-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-the-trustees-port-of-vs-efclon-tie-up-pvt-ltd-ors-on-8-may-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-the-trustees-port-of-vs-efclon-tie-up-pvt-ltd-ors-on-8-may-2006","name":"Board Of The Trustees, Port Of ... vs Efclon Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 8 May, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-05-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-10T02:18:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-the-trustees-port-of-vs-efclon-tie-up-pvt-ltd-ors-on-8-may-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-the-trustees-port-of-vs-efclon-tie-up-pvt-ltd-ors-on-8-may-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-the-trustees-port-of-vs-efclon-tie-up-pvt-ltd-ors-on-8-may-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Board Of The Trustees, Port Of … vs Efclon Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 8 May, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/82526","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=82526"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/82526\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=82526"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=82526"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=82526"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}