Supreme Court Restored Port Trust's Writ Petitions To Be Heard After Disposal Of Pending Intra‑Court Appeals

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale heard appeals by New Mangalore Port Trust challenging a judgment of the Karnataka High Court which had dismissed NMPT's writ petitions and upheld a District Judge's order quashing demands raised by the Estate Officer for retrospective licence fee arrears. The principal issue related to whether recovery proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 were barred by limitation and whether a written communication from licensees operated as an acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court order dated 22.11.2019 and restored NMPT's writ petitions to be heard after disposition of the intra‑court appeals filed by the licensees in the Karnataka High Court. The bench held that the Limitation Act applied to proceedings under the PP Act and that the licensees’ correspondence of 04.02.2015 constituted an acknowledgement in writing, thereby extending limitation. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Section 18 of the Limitation Act is very clear that where liability is acknowledged in respect of any property or right, a fresh limitation may be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was so signed. Clause (a) of the explanation to Section 18 declares that an acknowledgment would be sufficient for various reasons to be stated therein, which includes the time for payment has not yet come as one of the reasons. In the present case this reason squarely applies.” The Court further noted that “there was no denial to pay nor the amount was disputed” and directed that if the Division Bench allowed the pending appeals, “there would no question of any recovery retrospectively.”

Background The dispute arose from allotments of port land by NMPT to several licensees for loading and unloading goods with licence fee revisions to be notified with retrospective effect by the Tariff Authority for Major Ports (TAMP). TAMP issued a notification dated 23.07.2010 revising licence fees with retrospective effect from 20.02.2007. Licensees filed writ petitions before the Karnataka High Court challenging retrospective operation; a Single Judge dismissed those petitions on 28.06.2013. The licensees filed intra‑court appeals which were admitted and remained pending without interim stay.

NMPT issued demand notices to recover arrears pursuant to the 2010 notification. The Estate Officer under the PP Act served a show‑cause notice under section 7(3) on 12.08.2015 and subsequently passed an order under section 7(1). The licensees contended that demands prejudiced the pending intra‑court appeals and, in a letter dated 04.02.2015, objected to payment while the appeals were pending. The District Judge allowed the licensees’ appeals under section 9 of the PP Act on 15.03.2017, holding recovery barred by limitation; the High Court dismissed NMPT’s writ petitions, prompting these appeals to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court examined whether the communications between parties amounted to an acknowledgement under Section 18 of the Limitation Act and whether limitation timed from the notification of 23.07.2010 had expired before initiation of statutory proceedings. The Court concluded that the licencees’ written reply of 04.02.2015 did not deny liability but asked for deferment pending the intra‑court appeals and thereby fell within clause (a) to Section 18’s explanation. The Court held that, on the admitted record, limitation was extended up to 03.02.2018 and that the High Court should have awaited the outcome of the intra‑court appeals before finally adjudicating NMPT’s writ petitions. The Court restored the writ petitions for fresh hearing after disposal of the pending intra‑court appeals, and clarified that if the Division Bench allowed the appeals, retrospective recovery would fall away; if the licensees failed, recovery would proceed “in accordance to law along with interest admissible under law.”

Case No.: 2025 INSC 440 (Civil Appeal Nos. 1796–1828 of 2024) Case Title: New Mangalore Port Trust & Anr. v. Clifford D. Souza etc. etc. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Yatindra Singh, Learned Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Shri Vikas Singh, Learned Senior Counsel; Ms. Haripriya Padmanabhan, Learned Senior Counsel