Das Gupta, J. - (1.) The main question that arises for consideration in, these three Rules is whether the petitioners, the Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta, are entitled to the protection of the second sub-section of section 113 of the Calcutta Port Act, in three suits for recovery of damages for non-delivery of certain goods that were landed by them.
(2.) Civil Revision Case No. 2901 of 1953, arises out of a suit on a claim for damages for non-delivery of three bags of betelnut out of 79 bags of betel-nut which arrived in the port of Calcutta, by S. S. Shirala. These bags were landed on the 21st June, 1949, and Customs duty as claimed on the papers was paid. There was however an order by the Customs Officer for detention of 10 bags, and the remaining 69 bags were delivered to the owner on the 30th June, 1949. The excess duty demanded by the Customs Officer was paid thereafter and there was an order on the 18th July, 1949, releasing the remaining bags. When, however, the owner's agent went to take delivery of the 10 bags, delivery was given only of seven hags and three bags were not delivered on the ground that they could not be traced.
(3.) Civil Revision Case No. 2902 of 1953, arises out of a suit by the same plaintiff for recovery of damages for non-delivery of four drums of cocoanut oil. 67 drums of cocoanut oil consigned to the plaintiff arrived in the Calcutta Port by S. S. Ha'Kang on the 29th September, 1949, and were landed on the Port Commissioners' jetty on the 29th and 30th September, 1949. Instead of taking delivery of these at the port, the plaintiff instructed the Port Commissioners to despatch these by train to Bankura. 63 drums were actually despatched but the remaining four were not; and when the plaintiff enquired about these he was told that these could not be traced.;