EAST AND WEST STEAMSHIP CO GEORGETOWN MADRAS NARANDAS MATHURADAS NARIELWALA NARANDAS MATHURADAS NARIELWALA Vs. S K RAMALINGAM CHETTIAR:BHARAT LINE LIMITED :BRITISH INDIA STEAM NAVIGATION CO LIMITED
LAWS(SC)-1960-5-4
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on May 03,1960

EAST AND WEST STEAMSHIP COMPANY,GEORGETOWN,MADRAS,NARANDAS MATHURADAS NARIELWALA,BRITISH INDIA STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY,LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
S.K.RAMALINGAM CHETTIAR,BHARAT LINE LIMITED Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

VISAKHA PETROLEUM PRODUCTS PVT LTD VS. B L BANSAL [LAWS(BOM)-2015-3-2] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERDHANDAS KALIDAS VS. NEW DHOLERA STEAMSHIPS LTD [LAWS(KER)-1963-12-22] [REFERRED TO]
JAWAHAR LAL MOTUMAL MAMTANI VS. BHAG CHAND MOTUMAL MAMTANI [LAWS(DLH)-1981-3-51] [REFERRED]
VIJ SALES CORPORATION VS. LUGTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES [LAWS(DLH)-1981-9-27] [REFERRED]
M AND M TRADING CORPN OF INDIA LTD VS. SHIPPING CORPN OF INDIA LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1986-4-33] [REFERRED TO]
K S ABDUL SATTAR VS. ISSAK ADAM [LAWS(BOM)-1989-2-8] [REFERRED TO]
TEXTILES AND YARN P LTD VS. INDIAN NATIONAL STEAMSHIP CO LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1964-1-18] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWANDAS B. RAMCHANDANI VS. BRITISH AIRWAYS [LAWS(SC)-2022-7-111] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL SILK STORES, VISAKHAPATNAM VS. GENERAL MANAGER OF S.E. RLY., REPRESENTING THE UNION OF INDIA (CENTRAL GOVT.) [LAWS(APH)-1957-8-41] [REFERRED TO]
FEDERAL CHEMICAL WORKS LIMITED VS. NUTSCO NIGERIA LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2000-9-83] [REFERRED]
TEJ SHOE EXPORTERS P LTD VS. AIR INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2007-10-302] [REFERRED TO]
MERCANTILE STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY VS. THANULINGOM PILLAI [LAWS(KER)-1968-2-10] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. NEW DHOLARU STEAMSHIPS LTD [LAWS(KER)-1968-9-7] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. S R A REDDIAR AND CO [LAWS(KER)-1971-1-11] [REFERRED TO]
RADHA KRISHNA MOHAPATRA VS. BHUYAN SRI SHYAM SUNDAR MOHAPATRA [LAWS(ORI)-1963-12-13] [REFERRED TO]
SHIPPING CORPN OF INDIA LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2004-7-139] [REFERRED TO]
MOUNT SHIVALIK BREWERIES LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2003-1-121] [REFERRED TO]
BRITISH AIRWAYS VS. ART WORKS EXPORT LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1985-7-3] [REFERRED TO]
STEPHEN COMMERCE PVT LTD VS. OWNERS and PARTIES INTERESTED IN THE VESSEL M V WISE KING [LAWS(CAL)-2004-7-14] [REFERRED TO]
E I D PARRY INDIA LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE OF DARE HOUSE MADRAS 1 VS. FAR EASTERN MARINE TRANSPORT CO LTD [LAWS(MAD)-1983-4-35] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. MALABAR STEAMSHIP CO LTD [LAWS(KER)-1970-3-8] [REFERRED TO]
JOB LOPEZ VS. AMERICAN EXPORT ISBRANDTSTEN LINE INC [LAWS(KER)-1971-5-4] [REFERRED TO]
BEDI VS. GIRDHARI [LAWS(P&H)-1986-1-99] [REFERRED]
SURENDRA (OVERSEAS) P R LTD VS. FAR EAST ENTERPRISING CO [LAWS(CAL)-1965-1-28] [REFERRED]
NARAINSONS OVERSEAS VS. NATVAR PARIKH INDUSTRIES LTD [LAWS(NCD)-2019-9-46] [REFERRED TO]
RAVS EXPORTS (P) LTD & ANR VS. AIR FRANCE CARGO [LAWS(NCD)-1997-5-183] [REFERRED]
U S AWASTHYAPPE VS. GULF AIR [LAWS(NCD)-2003-9-5] [REFERRED TO]
RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD VS. P AND O CONTAINERS LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2005-8-125] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENT MIDDLE EAST LINES LTD VS. BRACE TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF MONROVIA [LAWS(GJH)-1985-4-10] [REFERRED]
BLUE OCEAN EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. OWNERS AND PARTIES INTERESTED IN THE VESSEL M V TIGER CREEK [LAWS(CAL)-2001-10-3] [REFERRED TO]
M/S BHAGWANDAS B RAMCHANDANI VS. BRITISH AIRWAYS NEW IMPORT BUILDING [LAWS(BOM)-2018-2-401] [REFERRED TO]
E I C M EXPORT LTD VS. SOUTH INDIA CORPORATION (AGENCIES) LTD [LAWS(NCD)-2012-1-48] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT BARREL AND DRUM MFG CO LIMITED VS. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPO RATION [LAWS(SC)-1971-9-77] [REFERRED]
AMERICAN EXPORT ISBRANDTSEN LINES INC VS. JOE LOPEZ [LAWS(SC)-1972-4-21] [APPLIED]
M M T C VS. A L BAMAR COMPANY LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2009-5-40] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL SILK STORES VISAKHAPATNAM VS. GENERAL MANAGER OF S E RLY REPRESENTING THE UNION OF INDIA UOI CENTRAL GOVT CALCUTTA [LAWS(APH)-1961-1-25] [REFERRED TO]
LEELA DHUNDIRAJ DIVEKAR VS. E C SHINDE [LAWS(BOM)-1968-7-8] [REFERRED TO]
KOHINOOR CARPET MANUFACTURERS VS. FORBES GOKAK LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2001-12-11] [REFERRED TO]
SAILESH TEXTILE INDUSTRIES VS. BRITISH AIRWAYS [LAWS(DLH)-2003-3-43] [REFERRED]
TEJ SHOE EXPORTERS P LTD VS. AIR INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2006-10-118] [REFERRED TO]
KONSUMEX VS. ANAND AND CO [LAWS(CAL)-1981-4-15] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTHAN FERTILISER CORPORATION LTD. VS. OCEAN BLUE COMPAGNIA MARITIME S.A. [LAWS(CAL)-1993-6-46] [REFERRED TO]
JAYTEE EXPORTS VS. NATVAR PAREKH INDUSTRIES LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-2001-5-3] [REFERRED]
UNION CARBIDE INDIA LTD VS. JAYANTI SHIPPING CO P LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1969-2-6] [REFERRED TO]
P S RAGHAVACHARI VS. SPECIAL OFFICER CORPORATION OF MADRAS [LAWS(MAD)-1995-9-110] [REFERRED TO]
SIALKOT INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1977-9-1] [REFERRED]
S K NETWORKS COMPANY LTD VS. AMULYA EXPORTS LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2006-3-21] [REFERRED TO]
TTK BIOMED LTD VS. AREBEE STAR MARITIME AGENCIES PVT LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2008-9-20] [REFERRED]
SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. & ANOTHER VS. CASHEW CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. AND OTHERS [LAWS(KER)-1990-11-76] [REFERRED TO]
MADURA CO PRIVATE VS. A THANGAL JUNJU MUSALIAR [LAWS(KER)-1963-10-10] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL GULF STEAMSHIP CORPORATION VS. SORABJI AND COMPANY P LTD [LAWS(KER)-1970-3-4] [REFERRED TO]
BRITISH INDIA STEAM NAVIGATION CO. LTD VS. SHANMUGHAVILAS CASHEW INDUSTRIES, QUILON [LAWS(KER)-1973-8-34] [REFERRED TO]
C P KAPUR VS. CHAIRMAN [LAWS(DLH)-2012-10-311] [REFERRED TO]
MINERALS AND METALS TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD VS. SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1986-4-15] [REFERRED TO]
SHAKTI BHOG FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2020-6-5] [REFERRED TO]
MAHAJAN SILK MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. M V MSC ELENA A MOTOR SHIP FLYING THE FLAG OF PANAMA AND REGISTERED AT THE PORT OF PANAMA [LAWS(BOM)-2000-4-75] [REFERRED TO]
K B JACOB VS. SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD [LAWS(KER)-1990-1-24] [REFERRED TO]
TRANSWORLD SHIPPING SERVICES PVT LIMITED VISAKHAPATNAM VS. VISAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST VISAKHAPATNAM [LAWS(APH)-1995-9-98] [REFERRED TO]
JUGOLINIJA RAJIA JUGOSLAVIJA VS. FAB LEATHERS LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1984-8-9] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. INDUSTRIAL ARMAMENTS SPA VS. STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. [LAWS(CAL)-1985-3-37] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. NAVROM CONSTANTZA [LAWS(CAL)-1987-6-7] [REFERRED TO]
INDIA STEAMSHIP CO LTD VS. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD [LAWS(MAD)-1990-8-72] [REFERRED TO]
JAGIR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2003-5-44] [REFERRED TO]
HOUSING BOARD HARYANA VS. KARTAR SINGH ETC OF HISAR [LAWS(NCD)-1994-11-81] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)These three appeals - Civil Appeal No. 88 of 1956, Civil Appeal No. 91 of 1958 and Civil Appeal No. 92 of 1958, of which one is from a decision of the High Court of Madras and the other two from decisions of the High Court of Bombay raise some common questions of general importance to carriers of goods by sea and of shippers as regards the 3rd clause of paragraph 6 of Art III in the Schedule of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (hereinafter called "the Act"). This clause provides that "in any event the carrier and the shipper shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless a suit is brought within one year after the delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered". In all the three appeals before us the carriers' main defence to claims of compensation by the owners of the goods was based on this clause and the Courts had to consider whether this defence was available to the carrier.
(2.)The appeal from the Madras High Court was in respect of a consignment of 90 bundles of brass circles which were consigned to the respondent at Madras from Bombay to Madras per S. S. Fakira a Steamer belonging to the East and West Steamship Co. The Ship arrived in Madras on 1-8-1948, and 78 out of the 90 bundles were delivered on 25-8-1948, to the appellant through his clearing agent the second respondent. Five more bundles were delivered on 25-9-1948. After some correspondence between the Shipping Company and the first respondent regarding the seven bundles not delivered the appellant company repudiated finally the respondent's claim on 24-3-1950. The first respondent brought the present suit on 27-6-1950, claiming Rs. 1,023-5-0 as compensation -Rs. 974-13-0 for the value of the undelivered goods and Rs. 48-8-0 as the profit of which he had been deprived. The claim for this amount of profit was given up at the trial. The appellant's defence was: (1) that the suit having been filed beyond the period prescribed in cl. 6 of Art. III of the Act; (2) that the suit was also barred as no claim had been made within the period of one month from the date of arrival of the vessel as stipulated in the bill of lading and (3) that the goods were insufficiently packed and therefore carrier was not liable for the alleged loss. The learned Judge of the Small Causes Court who tried the suit as also the Judge who heard the matter on a new trial application held that the plaintiff's right to claim to compensation was extinguished before the date of the suit.
(3.)As regards the second defence based on the stipulation in the bill of lading that notice has to be given within one month the trial Court held that this term in the bill of lading was void and of no effect. The learned judges who heard the new trial application disagreed with this and accepted the defence on this point also. In the result they dismissed the new trial application and confirmed the order of dismissal made by the learned trial Judge. Against this order the High Court of Madras was moved by the plaintiffs under section 115, Civil Procedure Code. The learned Judge held that the term in the bill of lading as regards one month's notice was repugnant to Rule 8 to Art. III of the Schedule to the Act and was void. He was also of opinion that the date of the final repudiation of liability by the Shipping company as regards the short delivery or non-delivery is the date "when the goods should have been delivered" within the meaning of the 3rd clause of the 6th paragraph of Art. III and so whether this clause provided for extinction of a right or only prescribed a rule of limitation the defence based on this clause of the Act could not succeed. He expressed his own opinion, however, that this clause did not provide for extinction of the right but merely prescribed a rule of limitation. In view of his conclusions he set aside the decision of the lower courts and remanded the suit for further disposal to the trial court. After remand the trial court on 4-5-1954, decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 974-13-0. Against that decree no steps were taken by the Shipping Company. It was after that date that the Shipping Company applied for and obtained from this Court special leave to appeal on 11-10-1954. It has to be noticed that as the decree made in the suit has become final and unassailable, this appeal is really of academic interest. In view however of the fact that the main question of law raised, viz., as regards the scope and interpretation of the 3rd Clause of para. 6 of Art. III of the Schedule to the Act is being raised before us in other two appeals from the Bombay High Court also we have heard the counsel for both sides in this appeal in full.
;


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