Facts:

• M/S Rasiklal Kantilal & Company was the Appellant and Respondent No. 1 was the Port of Bombay, which was responsible for the storage and handling of imported goods at the Bombay Port.
• 78 shipments of zinc ingots and copper iron bars were imported by five consignees from M/s Metal Distributors (UK) Ltd. at Bombay Port. The consignees filed bills of entry for 37 consignments but did not clear them, leaving them at the port.
• Facing a loss, M/s Metal Distributors (UK) Ltd. asked the Appellant, an unrelated third party, to purchase the goods.
• On 23.03.1992, the petitioner through his agent applied to Customs to substitute the Bills of Entry for 37 consignments and filed for the remaining 41. A formal agreement with M/s Metal Distributors (UK) Ltd. was made in April 1992.
• The petitioner received a detention certificate from Customs for 41 consignments, initially covering.
• The cause of action arose when the Appellant's request for remission of demurrage charges imposed by the Port of Bombay was rejected.
• Aggrieved by the demurrage charges, the Appellant filed Writ Petition No. 2012/1996 before the Madras High Court, which was later dismissed.
• Hence, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.
  

Background/ Procedural Posture:

• The Appellant filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court, seeking a declaration that the Respondent's denial of demurrage remission was unlawful. (Paragraph 2)
• On 12.04.2010, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Port of Bombay's decision regarding demurrage charges. (Paragraph 3)
• Aggrieved by the decision, the appeal was filed.
  

Main Issue:

Whether the decision of the Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay to deny full remission of demurrage fees for unclaimed goods was justified?