Dalveer Bhandari, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed under Section 10 and II read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act. According to the petitioner, this is a clear case of deliberate disobedience of the order of this court dated 9. 9. 1994. By the order dated 9. 9. 1994, this court directed that goods in question should be released to the petitioner without payment of any detention or demurrage charges. Since the goods were not released to the petitioner as directed in the judgment, the petitioner filed C. M. 8345/94 in C. W. P. no-1604/91. ( 2 ) ON 28. 11. 94, this court directed the respondents to comply with the judgment within a fortnight. Even thereafter, the goods have not been released. The petitioner did not implead respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petition. Respondent no. 4 is the Shipping Corporation of India and respondent no. 5 is the Container Corporation of India. ( 3 ) MR. L. N. Aggarwal, Regional Manager of the Shipping Corporation of India has filed the counter-affidavit. It is submitted that though the petitioner was throughout aware of the fact that the suit consignment is lying with the Container Corporation of India, ICD, Tuglakabad, New Delhi, in the Container of the Shipping Corporation of India; even then the petitioner " deliberately chose not to implead either the Shipping Corporation of India or the Container Corporation of India as parties to the petition and filed the writ petition only against the Customs Authorities. It is further submitted that the judgment and order dated 9. 9. 94 is a judgment in personam and not in rem and hence is not binding on them who were not parties to the petition in which the order was passed. Any direction passed by this court to release the consignment without payment of applicable detention/demurrage charges are only related to the stoms Department. ( 4 ) IT is also mentioned that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that an importer or a consignee cannot claim immunity from paying any demurrage or detention charges even if the detention of the consignment/goods was not due to any fault or negligence of the importer/consignee. The learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4 has placed reliance on Trustees of the Port of Madras vs. Aminchand Pyarelal, (. The learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4 has placed reliance on Trustees of the Port of Madras vs. Aminchand Pyarelal, (. 1976) 3 SCC 167, and Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Indian Goods Supplying Co. , (1977) 2 SCC 649 . In these cases, the Supreme Court has held that the Port Trust is entitled to claim demurrage under the contract entered with the consignee and the same could not be denied to it unless it was found that the delay in release of the goods was due to the conduct of the Port Trust. The court further held that a consignee cannot claim immunity from paying any demurrage/detention charges even if the detention of the goods was not due to any fault or negligence of the consignee/ importer. ( 5 ) IT is further submitted that the petitioner chose not to implead the Shipping Corporation of India and the Container Corporation of India as parties in the writ petition and any order which is prejudicially affecting the interests of the Slipping Corporation of India or the Container Corporation of India. had been obtained in breach of the principles of natural justice and the order is non est. The petitioner cannot be permitted to take benefit of such an order. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for respondent no. 4 has also relied on Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay vs. ]ai Hind Oil Mills Co. , (1987) I SCC 648. In this case, the Court held that the Port Trust, being a body corporate, is entitled to be heard by the Court before any order, which affects its interest prejudicially was passed. Any order passed in the proceedings to which the Port Trust was not a party which had the effect of prejudicially affecting the interest of the Port Trust would not be binding on the Port Trust in view of the violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that in accordance with the universally accepted shipping practice, on receipt of the original Bill of Lading and freight the Shipping Corporation of India releases a Delivery Order valid for five days, meaning thereby that during such five days the consignee can take delivery of the consignment without any payment of detention or demurrage charges. It is also submitted that in accordance with the universally accepted shipping practice, on receipt of the original Bill of Lading and freight the Shipping Corporation of India releases a Delivery Order valid for five days, meaning thereby that during such five days the consignee can take delivery of the consignment without any payment of detention or demurrage charges. Thereafter, the consignee is liable to pay at the rate of 7 U. S. dollars per day for the first seven days, at the rate of 12 U. S. dollars per day for the next seven days, at the rate of 16 U. S. dollars per day for the next seven days, and thereafter at the rate of 20 U. S. dollars per day. Since in the present case, the consignee, the petitioner, failed to take the delivery within the first free five days, from the date of release of Delivery Order (2. 2. 1990), respondent no. 4 felt legally justified in taking the view that the con- signee is liable to pay the detention/demurrage charges as per the aforesaid schedule. ( 7 ) RESPONDENT no. 5 also stated in the reply that respondent no. 5 was a necesgary party and the petitioner ought not to have filed the writ petition without impleading respondent no. 5. Respondent no. 5 has placed reliance on the order of the Division Bench of this court, C. W. P. 3643/91 - Ibne Hasan vs. Collector of Customs. In this judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court has relied on the decision of the Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay vs. Jai Hind Oil Mills Co. and others, AIR 1987 S. C,622. The Supreme Court has held that it was the duty of the petitioner to have impleaded the Container Corporation of India. In absence of the Container Corporation of India, the Customs authorities issued detention certificate pursuant to the orders of the Madras High Court and when detention certificate was produced before the Container Corporation of India, the Container Corporation of India did not honour it and demanded payment of wharfage charges and demurrage. This led to filing of a writ petition in the High Court. This led to filing of a writ petition in the High Court. On a reading of the Supreme Court decision referred to above, it is clear that before an order for release of the goods was to be obtained and detention certificate was to be made, the Container Corporation of India could ignore the order of the Madras High Court because an order passed behind the back of the necessary parties does not bind that party. Respondent no. 4 has indicated the detailed procedure. The procedure is as follows. " (i) On arrival of the ship at the port the containers are off loaded and stacked in the port stack area. The permission for transshipment of the containers meant for ICD, New Delhi, is obtained by respective shipping lines from Bombay customsoffice. (ii) After obtaining the above permission the containers are shifted from Port to Rail head i. e. Cotton Depot RCD BPT Railway by the shipping line. (iii) On arrival of containers at Cotton Depot RCD forwarding note is executed by shipping line for booking containers by rail ex cotton Depot, RCD, BPT Railway to ICD, New Delhi. (iv) Containers are booked by Station Master Cotton Depot, RCD, and loaded on the wagons. The Inland way Bills are issued to the Shipping Lines. (v) On arrival of container at ICD, New Delhi containers are off loaded from wagons and stacked in the container yard: After grounding of container at ICD, New Delhi, 48 hours are given free from the midnight of the grounding. Thereafter 48 hours free time as stated above, the following ground rent is payable to the answering -. respondent: (a) 1st three days :rs. 100. 00 per day per TEU (b) Next four days : Rs. 300. 00 per day per TEU (c) From 8th day onwards: Rs. 500. 00 per day per TEU Inland way Bills are released by Customs Department and book delivery is taken by shipping line from answering respondent on payment of freight, handling charges and ground rent. The Inland way bills are also collected by the answering respondent from Shipping Lines at the time of book delivery. (vi) Bill of entry is filed by importer with customs office for customs clearance. The delivery order is obtained by importer from shipping line on payment of their dues of Shipping Line (s ). The Inland way bills are also collected by the answering respondent from Shipping Lines at the time of book delivery. (vi) Bill of entry is filed by importer with customs office for customs clearance. The delivery order is obtained by importer from shipping line on payment of their dues of Shipping Line (s ). (vii) On presentation of Bill of Entry containing customs official endorsement for examination and delivery order of Shipping Line, the container is opened in the presence of customs, importer and examination is conducted by Customs staff. (viii) After examination, the duty is appraised by Customs and paid by the importer. After payment of customs duty, customs out of charge certificate is issued by Customs office to the Importer. (ix) Customs out of charge issued by the Customs and valid delivery order issued by Shipping Lines is presented to the answering respondent for delivery of goods. (x) The answering respondent after seeing the customs out of charge and delivery order calcualtes the ground rent charges accrued upto the date of presentation of the said documents. On surrendering of the Customs out of charge and delivery order issued by the Shipping Line and payment of the answering respondent ground rent charges, the answering respondent issues the Gate Pass to the importer for physical delivery of cargo. If there is delay on any account whatsoever which is not attributable to the answering respondent, the answering respondent charges the ground rent as stated hereinabove. In this case, the petitioner has not completed the formalities mentioned above for the release of the goods. " ( 8 ) RESPONDENT no. 5 submitted that the petitioner is liable to pay its charges. It was also submitted that respondent no. 5 is not bound by the order because respondent no. 5 was not a party to the petition filed by the petitioner and it did not have any opportunity to explain its point of view before the court. The petitioner ought to have impleaded respondent no. 5 as a party to the petition and respondent no. 5 cannot be permitted to suffer on account of the lapse of the petitioner. ( 9 ) IN view of the reply, respondents cannot be held guilty of disobeying. any order passed by this court. ( 10 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5 as a party to the petition and respondent no. 5 cannot be permitted to suffer on account of the lapse of the petitioner. ( 9 ) IN view of the reply, respondents cannot be held guilty of disobeying. any order passed by this court. ( 10 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In view of the ratio of the Supreme Court s judgment in the case of Port of Bombay-vs. Jai Hind Oil Mills Co. (supra), I do not find any merit in the contempt petition and the contempt notice is discharged and the petition is accordingly dismissed. ( 11 ) LOOKING to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner would be at liberty to move the Division Bench of this Court for appropriate directions regarding payment of demurrage/detention charges. Now of course both the Shipping Corporation and the Container Corporation are before the court as respondents 4 and 5. The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of.