Bombay High Court
PYRAMID SHIPPING PRIVATE LIMITEDversusTHE BOARD OF MUMBAI PORT AUTHORITY (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF PORT OF MUMBAI)AND 2ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Compromise Proposal remains binding until 31 March 2024, and any post‑expiry rent revision by the Port Authority must not constitute rack‑renting or profiteering.
Summary
The petitioners, Sterling Fisheries Ice & Cold Storage Services Pvt. Ltd. and Pyramid Shipping Private Ltd., filed writ petitions challenging the rent rates fixed by the Board of Mumbai Port Authority under its own Compromise Proposal. The Compromise Proposal had been upheld by the Supreme Court in Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai, applying up to 31 March 2024 with a 4% annual increase. The High Court examined whether the Port Authority could revise rents after that date and emphasized the Supreme Court’s directive against rack‑renting or profiteering. It held that the Compromise Proposal remains binding until 31 March 2024, after which the Authority may revise rents but must not engage in rack‑renting. Accordingly, the Court granted the petitioners’ reliefs in full, declaring the rent rates as per the Compromise Proposal and restraining the Authority from profiteering.
Issues considered
- Whether the rent rates fixed under the Board’s Compromise Proposal are applicable to the petitioners up to 31 March 2024.
- Whether the Board of Mumbai Port Authority may revise rent rates after the expiry of the Compromise Proposal.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s observation prohibiting rack‑renting binds the Port Authority in revising rents.
Subjects
- rent rates
- Compromise Proposal
- Port Authority
- rack‑renting
- declaration
- writ petition
- rent revision
Judgment
NISHA Digitally signed by
NISHA SANDEEP
SANDEEP CHITNIS
Date: 2026.09.08
CHITNIS 17:46:18 +0530
902&903-3388&3425.2023.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3388 OF 2023
Sterling Fisheries Ice & Cold Storage
Services Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The Board of Mumbai Port Authority
(formerly known as Board of Trustees
of Port of Mumbai) and Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3425 OF 2023
Pyramid Shipping Private Limited ...Petitioner
Versus
The Board of Mumbai Port Authority
(formerly known as Board of Trustees
of Port of Mumbai) and Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Rajeev Waglay i/b Ms. Neha Pandya for the Petitioners in both the
matters.
Ms. Khushaboo Rupani (through video-conferencing) i/b HSA
Advocates for the Respondent No.1-Board of Mumbai Port Authority
in both the matters.
Mr. Ramchandra Apte, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Sagar Ambedkar and
Ms. Disha Nidre for the Respondent No.3-UOI in both the matters.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.
DATE : 7th SEPTEMBER 2026
N. S. Chitnis 1/3
902&903-3388&3425.2023.doc
P.C. :
1. The respective counsel representing the Petitioners as well as
the Board of Mumbai Port Authority are at ad idem that the reliefs
sought in the Petitions filed in the year 2023 are governed by the
Judgment delivered on 25th August 2026 (Writ Petition No.3143 of 2022
along with group of matters) to which one of us (Bharati Dangre, J.) is a
party.
2. Perusal of the reliefs in the petitions would reveal that the
Petitioners seek declaration about rates of rent fixed under respondent
No.1’s own Compromise Proposal which was upheld by the order of the
Apex Court in Jamshed Hormusji Wadia vs. The Board of Trustees of the
Port of Mumbai and Another1 being made applicable to the Petitioners
upto 31st March 2024 with 4% annual increase thereon in October.
Since we have taken a view that the Compromise Proposal which
received its approval from the High Court as well as subsequently by
the Apex Court subject to certain modifications and pursuant
1 (2004) 3 SCC 214
N. S. Chitnis 2/3
902&903-3388&3425.2023.doc
thereto since by TR No.31/2004 the Port Authority also agreed to
implement the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court and continue with
the Compromise Proposal till 31 st March 2024, we have granted
liberty to the Port Authority to revise the rents on expiry of the said
period, but subject to observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Jamshed Hormusji Wadia (supra) that there shall be no
rack-renting/profiteering by the Port Authority.
In the wake of the aforesaid, Writ petitions are made
absolute in terms of prayer clause ‘A’ and ‘B’.
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J. BHARATI DANGRE, J.
N. S. Chitnis 3/3
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.