(Prayer: Review Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of C.P.C., to seek a review of the order dated 16.09.2025 passed in W.P.No.35248 of 2025.)

N. Anand Venkatesh, J .

1. This review application was filed to review the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.35248 of 2025, dated 16.09.2025.

2. When the writ petition was disposed of by this Court by an order dated 16.09.2025, this Court issued the following directions:

               “7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that after investigation, the SIIB did not find any irregularities in the consignment and had also issued a No Objection Certificate vide letter dated 15.05.2025 and the first respondent has also issued a waiver letter dated 03.07.2025, the first respondent is directed to intimate the second and third respondents to immediately act upon the waiver letter and release the goods in Container No.WHSU4038572 to the petitioner without imposing any detention, demurrage or additional charges. This process shall be completed by the first respondent within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

3. When the review application came up for further hearing on 11.02.2026, this Court, upon hearing the counsel on either side, passed the following order:

               “Heard learned counsel for the review petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 3.

               2.Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, on instructions, submitted that the 3rd respondent is inclined to comply with the order passed by this Court and waive the detention charges plus the GST payable and release the goods. However, the review petitioner has debited nearly 7.01 lakhs towards ground rent and storage charges and unless this entry is reversed, the 3rd respondent will not in a position to give complete waiver of the detention charges in favour of the writ petitioner.

               3.Learned counsel for the review petitioner, by relying upon the additional affidavit, submitted that irrespective of the waiver given by the 3 rd respondent and even by the review petitioner, the fact remains that the revenue share of the detention charges will have to be paid to the Chennai Port Authority which works out to roughly Rs.4lakhs and odd. Learned counsel submitted that unless the Chennai Port Authority agrees for refund/waiver of the proportionate charges payable by the review petitioner, the review petitioner is not in a position to reverse the debit entry made as against the 3rd respondent.

               4.In the case in hand, the only reason, as to why the review petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent are willing to waive the charges is that the goods involved in only valued about Rs.2lakhs. Therefore, on the peculiar facts of the case, they are willing to grant the waiver. However, what stands in the way is, the revenue share detention charges recovered by the Chennai Port Authority. If the Chennai Port Authority is willing to waive the same in favour of the review petitioner, the said benefit can be extended by the review petitioner in favour of the 3rd respondent and in turn, the 3rd respondent can extend the benefit in favour of the writ petitioner.

               5.In view of the above, Chennai Port Authority, Represented by its Chairperson, No.1, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001, is suo motu added as 4 th respondent in this review petition.

               6.Learned counsel for the review petitioner is permitted to serve notice on Mr.Haja Mohideen Gisthi, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the Chennai Port Authority.

               7.Post this case on 20.02.2026 at 02.15 P.M

               8.Registry is directed to print the name of Mr.Haja Mohideen Gisthi for the impleaded 4th respondent.”

4. In the above order, this Court suo motu impleaded the Chennai Port Authority as the fourth respondent, since ultimately the decision to be taken or the direction to be issued by this Court to the Chennai Port Authority, will have the effect of disposing of the review application.

5. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the impleaded fourth respondent submitted that the Chennai Port had deducted the demurrage and detention charges strictly in accordance with law and that if any exception is granted in this case, it will set a precedent and it will put the Chennai Port to irreparable hardship while claiming for the demurrage and detention charges in future.

6. The learned counsel for the review petitioner also made it clear that if at all this Court issues any direction to the Chennai Port Authority, it must confine itself to the peculiar facts of this case and the same should not set a precedent, since such an order will have a cascading effect and review applicant will also be put to irreparable loss in future.

7. This Court carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.

8. In the facts of the present case, this Court is dealing with the waiver of charges for goods valued at about Rs.2,00,000/-. Considering this value, the learned counsel for the third respondent as well as the learned counsel for the review applicant were willing to extend the benefit in favour of the writ petitioner. However, in order to enable the review applicant to extend the benefit, the Chennai Port Authority will have to agree for the refund/waiver of the proportionate charges payable by the review applicant towards detention and demurrage charges.

9. If at all any benefit is extended in favour of the writ petitioner, it has a cascading effect on the review applicant, the third respondent as well as the Chennai Port Authority. Therefore, certainly the decision to be taken in this case cannot be taken as a precedent in any other case and the directions that are going to be issued by this Court will confine itself only to the peculiar facts of this case.

10. Even in the previous order, the third respondent made it clear before this Court that they are inclined to comply with the order passed in the writ petition and waive the detention charges plus GST payable and release the goods. However, the review applicant had debited nearly Rs.7.01 lakhs towards the ground rent and storage charges. If the review applicant has to reverse the said entry, in turn the Chennai Port Authority must agree for the refund / waiver. Hence, considering the small value of the goods involved in this issue and also considering the fact that the goods are lying in the godown of the third respondent for a long time, this Court is inclined to direct the impleaded fourth respondent, namely the Chennai Port Authority, to waive the proportionate charges payable by the review applicant. Necessary reversal of entry shall be made in this regard by the Chennai Port Authority. In the Alternative, there can be adjustment of amount payable in future by the review applicant in the running acount. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the review applicant to reverse the debit entry made towards the rent and storage charges with respect to the third respondent. The third respondent is directed to waive the detention charges plus GST payable and release the goods in favour of the writ petitioner. The entire process shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

11. At the risk of repetition, this Court makes it abundantly clear that this order will not be cited as a precedent in any other case and this order is passed only considering the peculiar facts of the present case.

12. This review application stands disposed of with the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs.