India’s top court has urged the creation of a dedicated appellate mechanism to review decisions of the Tariff Authority for Major Ports (TAMP), ending the practice of pushing such disputes directly to the Supreme Court.
The bench, comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal, stressed that tariff matters demand a degree of financial and technical scrutiny beyond the Court’s expertise. “Fixation of tariff involves complex factual and accounting considerations. This Court may not be the most suitable forum to examine them,” the judgment noted.
The recommendation echoes concerns raised earlier in Rojer Mathew vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. (2020), where the Court had criticized the system of routing tribunal orders straight to the apex bench. The proposal: establish an expert appellate body to handle tariff disputes emerging from TAMP rulings, making the remedy “more effective and meaningful.”
The case in focus involved Paradip Port Authority (formerly Paradip Port Trust) and Paradeep Phosphates Ltd., stemming from a 1985 agreement granting the fertilizer company exclusive use of a berth. Although tariff revisions were meant to be mutual, the Port Trust unilaterally raised charges in 1993 under the Major Port Trusts Act. The arbitrator later ruled in favor of the company, ordering refunds for the pre-1999 period and leaving later disputes to TAMP.
The Orissa High Court upheld that award, but the Supreme Court stepped in, clarifying that tariff-setting powers rest solely with TAMP—regardless of contractual terms suggesting otherwise. The Court set aside rulings by the Arbitrator, Appellate Authority, and High Court, remitting the issue back to TAMP for proper adjudication.
With this ruling, the Court signaled a shift away from judicial micromanagement of technical pricing disputes in port operations, nudging the system toward a more specialized appellate framework designed to handle the intricacies of tariff determination.
