Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J. - (1.) This is an application filed by M/s. First Steamship International (P.T.E.) Ltd. claiming to be the owner of the vessel M.V. Everwise inter alia praying for taking out the plaint of the file, in alternative for dismissal of the suit as well as for return of the security. The plaintiff in the above suit was the holder of three bills of lading issued by one M/s. Express Score Corporation appearing at pages 53-58 of the petition. Under the said bills of lading the plaintiff was to get 40,45 and 50 pieces of Indonesian logs, which were to be carried from Indonesia to Indian Port by the vessel M.V. Everwise. Although the bills of lading were produced and necessary formalities were completed by the plaintiff the goods were not delivered at once and the goods were ultimately delivered in June, 2001 instead of February, 2001 thereby causing loss and damages to the plaintiff for which the instant suit was filed by the plaintiff inter alia claiming for a sum of Rs.83,33,123/- as and by way of damage. The instant suit was filed as and by way of admiralty action on October 08, 2001 and an application for arrest was made. Initially the ship was arrested which was later on released upon furnishing of security by the ship-owner being the applicant before me.
(2.) According to the applicants, they were not having any privity of contract with the plaintiff. Under a charter party agreement the ship was given to the charterer namely M/s. Liberty Carriers SK. Under the said charter party agreement the Master of the ship was to conduct the carriage as per the instruction of the charterer. Under clause 8 of the charter party agreement the charterer was authorized by the owner and the Captain of the ship to issue bills of lading. According to the applicant, they were carrying these logs amounting to 1123 and 334 pieces respectively under two bills of lading issued by them in favour of M/s. Kundanmals International (P.T.E.) Ltd, Under the said bills of lading appearing at pages 93-94 of the petition the goods were to be discharged at Tuticorin, India. Accordingly, the goods were discharged at Indian Port by January 21, 2001, However, the part of the goods were delivered at Haldia instead of Tuticorin as according to the applicant, they did so as per the instruction of the charterer.
(3.) According to the applicant, since the goods were discharged as per the original bills of lading by January 21, 2001, they had no responsibility whatsoever with regard to the ultimate delivery of the goods. In the alternative it has been contended that the bills of lading under which the plaintiff is making a claim had been issued in February, 2001 much after the goods had been discharged by the ship at the Indian Port. Hence the applicants have no responsibility on the issue of delayed delivery of goods.;