JAGDISHPRASAD PANNALAL AND CO Vs. INDIA STEAMSHIP CO LTD
LAWS(CAL)-1963-2-22
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on February 25,1963

JAGDISHPRASAD PANNALAL Appellant
VERSUS
INDIA STEAMSHIP CO.LTD. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

GREAT WESTERN RLY. V. WILLS [REFERRED TO]
A.V.JOSEPH V. R.SHEW BUX [REFERRED TO]
MURLIDHAR CHIRANJILAL VS. HARISHCHANDRA DWARKADAS [REFERRED TO]
HOME INSURANCE CO LTD VS. RAMNATH AND CO MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
BRITISH INDIA STEAM NAVIGATION CO. LTD VS. T.P.SOKKALAL RAM SAIT [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

UNITED CHEMICALS VS. APC PHARMACEUTICALS AND CHEMICALS LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2009-7-316] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

A.N.Ray, J. - (1.)The plaintiff instituted this suit for the recovery of Rs. 3,52542-0 and in the alternative an enquiry into damages and decree for the sum found so due. By three bills of lading numbered 31, 32 and 39 all dated August 5, 1957 the defendant company acknowledged shipments by the plaintiff of 360 drums of groundnut oil to be safely and securely carried by the defendant company to the Port of Calcutta. On August 16, 1957 the steam-snip arrived at the Port of Calcutta. The defendant company delivered 348 drums and failed and neglected to deliver the balance quantity of 12 drums. The plaintiff claims a sum of Rs. 3,525-12-0 being proportionate invoice price of the said 12 drums."
(2.)The defendant alleged in the written statement that the said drums were carried on terms as will appear from the endorsements on the bills of lading. The endorsements relied on by the defendant are set out in paragraph 3 of the written statement. The defendant denies any breach of contract. The defendant contends that if any portion of the goods were not delivered, the defendant has no liability in respect of non-delivery or loss or damage by reason of the agreement between the parties.
(3.)The following issues were framed at the trial.
(1) What was the quantity of goods alleged to have been delivered to the plaintiff? (2) What was the value of the goods alleged to have been not delivered to the plaintiff ? (3) Is the defendant at all liable for the alleged nondelivery in view of the agreement under which the said goods under the bills of lading Nos. 31, 32 and 39 dated 5th August, 1957 were carried? (4) To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.