An exporter sought unpaid invoice values and damages from a carrier's agent for delivery without original bills of lading. The court dismissed the suit as time-barred and for want of a cause of action against the agent, holding that no causal nexus between the alleged negligence and the claimed losses was established.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
S-2533-98 IMPEX-MAERSK-F.DOC
CF/AK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO. 2533 OF 1998
M/S. JEEVES IMPEX,
a partnership firm, registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1930, carrying on business at A-Shiv Sagar Estate (Basement), Dr. A. B. Road, Worli, Mumbai 400 018
… Plaintiff
versus
1. MAERSK LINE INDIA PVT. LTD.
a Private Limited Company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Hamilton House, J. N. Heedia Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 038
2. M/S. EXIMPLUX REPRESENTACIONES, C.A. Venezuela, EDIF, Alborada, Guaicapuro, El Lianio, Caracas, Venezuela
3. UNION BANK OF INDIA,
a body corporate, constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its Central Office at 239, Backbay Reclamation, Mumbai 400 021 and Khand Bazar Branch at 109, Kazi Sayed Street, Mumbai 400 003
… Defendants
1 of 29
S-2533-98 IMPEX-MAERSK-F.DOC
APPEARANCES
FOR THE PLAINTIFF Ms. Ruby Taneja , i/b Shama Taneja. FOR THE DEFENDANT Mr. V. K. Ramabhadran, Senior Advocate , i/b Subra Karmarkar.
CORAM : G. S. Patel, J. JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 13th February 2015 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 30th March 2015 JUDGMENT:
1 Formerly, at various times, P&O (Indian Agencies) Private Limited and P&O Nedlloyd (India) Private Limited.
2 of 29
S-2533-98 IMPEX-MAERSK-F.DOC
There is, as we shall see, more than a little uncertainty as to the precise terms of the contractual arrangements between the Plaintiff and its purchaser, Defendant No. 2, on the one hand (the oral nature of which I will turn to presently), and the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 on the other. The Plaintiff alleges that the Bills of Lading were sent from the Plaintiff’s bank, Union Bank of India, Defendant No. 3 herein, to Banco Del Caribe. Defendant No. 2, the Plaintiff says, was to remit the amounts specified on the Bills of Lading to Banco Del Caribe, in exchange for the original Bills of Lading; upon presentation of these Bills of Lading to Defendant No. 1, Defendant No. 2 was to receive delivery of the goods. However, Defendant No. 1 delivered the goods to the Venezuelan Customs Authority instead of directly to Defendant No. 2, without obtaining the original Bills of Lading from Defendant No. 2. The goods seem to have ultimately reached Defendant No. 2, but Defendant No. 3, and consequently, the Plaintiff, has not received the amounts payable on the goods.
3 of 29
S-2533-98 IMPEX-MAERSK-F.DOC
and the 3rd Defendant, the Union Bank of India. There was, and this seems not to be in doubt, no question of any documents being required to be ‘negotiated’ by either bank. It is also admitted that the only reason the Banco del Caribe did not remit the invoice value to the Union Bank of India (the Plaintiff’s bankers) was because the Banco del Caribe had not been put in funds by the 2nd Defendant; not because any documents requiring negotiation were found to be discrepant. Yet, the Plaintiff’s claim is based on some halfway betwixt-and-between formulation: it simply claims that since the 1st Defendant did not deliver the goods against the original Bills of Lading, it is liable for the invoice value and in damages to the Plaintiff, wholly ignoring the fact that the goods were, admittedly, delivered to the Plaintiff’s principal debtor, the 2nd Defendant; and that it was the 2nd Defendant that did not remit the funds. Nothing in this transaction is quite what it seems. Indeed, it is more than somewhat surprising that any such contract should be ‘oral’ or ‘verbal’ given its value, and there is some material to indicate that the Plaintiff is or was being investigated precisely because of this. The fact that the 2nd Defendant received the goods is admitted in the plaint itself. The 2nd Defendant also made part payment and confirmed its indebtedness to pay the rest. Even assuming that the 1st Defendant failed or was remiss in not collecting the original Bills of Lading, this still does not establish how such a default would make the 1st Defendant liable on the invoice value of the goods; and of the so-called ‘negligence’, which must not only be pleaded but also proved, there is no evidence at all.
4 of 29
S-2533-98 IMPEX-MAERSK-F.DOC
of Lading were sent by the Plaintiff to the 3rd Defendant, which endorsed them to Banco del Caribe, which, therefore, solely had title. The original Bills of Lading were returned some time in November 1994. On that date, the goods under those Bills of Lading had already been delivered to the 2nd Defendant, and the Bills of Lading were therefore by then ‘spent’ and no longer negotiable. The other allegations made by the Plaintiff in relation to its contract are also denied.
5 of 29
S-2533-98 IMPEX-MAERSK-F.DOC
Does not survive.
any interest and if so at what rate? 11 What orders and what reliefs? Suit dismissed.
2 Issue No. 5 is actually a reference to Defendant No. 2, not Defendant No. 1.
6 of 29
S-2533-98 IMPEX-MAERSK-F.DOC
Given my findings on Issue Nos. 1 and 2, Issue Nos. 4 and 7 also do not survive. Issue Nos. 8, 9 and 10 must consequently be answered in the negative. As regards Issue No. 11, the suit is dismissed.
3 Exhibit P-35
4 Exhibit P-36
7 of 29
S-2533-98 IMPEX-MAERSK-F.DOC
15 complaining that the goods had been delivered without obtaining the original Bills of Lading from Defendant No. 2. On 25th January 1995, Defendant No. 1 replied to Defendant No. 3,6 forwarding a message from their New York office to the effect that the goods were released to the Customs Authority in accordance with the usual practice in Venezuela, and that the Customs Authority then controls the release of the goods to the consignee. It also referred to a guarantee provided by Banco Del Caribe to the Customs Authority. By its letter dated 28th January 1995,7 Defendant No. 3 requested Defendant No. 1 to furnish documentary evidence of the release of the goods, but none was received. None is on record today. Relevantly, there is a letter dated 10th April 19958 from Banco Del Caribe to Defendant No. 3 stating that the former never issued a bank guarantee in favour of Defendant No. 1. Much correspondence ensued, resulting in the filing of this suit for the outstanding sum on the goods, with interest, amounting to Rs. 53,28,687, and for damages in the amount of Rs. 2,48,00,000.
5 Exhibit P-39
6 Exhibit P-40
7 Exhibit P-41
8 Exhibit P-45
8 of 29
S-2533-98 IMPEX-MAERSK-F.DOC
which were recorded in a letter dated 9th January 2001. Consent terms dated 29th September 2001 were then entered into before a Lok Adalat for the settlement of the proceedings. The Plaintiff, therefore, admittedly has absolutely no surviving cause of action against Defendant No. 3. Worse, the Plaintiff failed to serve Defendant No. 2 in the nine years following the institution of this suit. The suit as against Defendant No. 2 was therefore dropped by an Order of this Court dated 22nd February 2007 for want of prosecution. The Plaintiff never even attempted to join Banco Del Caribe in its suit. Thus, the suit survives only as against Defendant No. 1, a mere carrier in all of this. Defendant No. 1 itself was an agent acting on behalf of its principal, P&O Containers Limited. The Plaintiff has never attempted to join the principal P&O Containers Limited. Quite apart from these infirmities, the Plaintiff’s entire suit is barred by limitation, as discussed below.
9 of 29
S-2533-98 IMPEX-MAERSK-F.DOC
aside, for the moment, the question of whether or not Defendant No. 1 was in fact negligent; this is far from clear. But even if we assume that Defendant No. 1 might be held liable in tort for negligence in delivering the goods to the Venezuelan Customs Authority instead of to Defendant No. 2 against original Bills of Lading, this is not enough to found a decree in damages. There is no causality between Defendant No. 1’s conduct and the Plaintiff’s losses; this negligence has no nexus with the losses allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff. The goods were admittedly delivered to Defendant No. 2. Those losses, then, stem from the 2nd Defendant’s withholding of payment. There is no evidence led to suggest that had Defendant No. 1 insisted on effecting delivery against the original Bills of Lading, the Plaintiff would have received its dues, because, as borne out by Banco Del Caribe’s letter, Defendant No. 2 had not even put Banco Del Caribe in sufficient funds. In fact, Defendant No. 2 was required to make payments for the goods to Banco Del Caribe in exchange for the Bills of Lading before delivery; the fact that they had not done so is prior in time and therefore (in the absence of any evidence to the contrary) seemingly independent of any error on the part of Defendant No. 1. The Plaintiff produces no correspondence between Banco Del Caribe and Defendant No. 3 to show that had Defendant No. 1 insisted on delivery as against the Bills of Lading, Defendant No. 2 would have made the requisite payments. We are not even provided with any evidence of the contractual arrangement between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2; there is not a single document concerning this contract, and we are asked to rely only on the word of the Plaintiff that there was an oral one.
10 of 29
S-2533-98 IMPEX-MAERSK-F.DOC
| S r. N |
Letter dated 9th July 1994 |
Letter dated 8th September 1994 |
Annexures to Mr. Shah’s Affidavit |
|---|---|---|---|
| o. | |||
| 1 | TFEI AAM 310487348 |
TFEI AAM 310487348 |
TFEI AAM 310487348 (Ex. P-28) |
| 2 | TFEI SBZ 408487567 |
TFEI SBZ 408487567 |
TFEI SBZ 408487578 (Ex. P-9) |
| 3 | TFEI ARI 310487532 | TFEI ARI 310487533 |
TFEI ARI 310487533 (Ex. P- 14) |
| 4 | TFEI ABM 312487769 |
||
| 5 | TFEI ABM 404488109 |
||
| 6 | TFEI ABM 310487483 |
TFEI ABM 310487483 |
TFEI ABM 310487483 (Ex. P-24) |
| 7 | TFEI AAM 402487979 |
TFEI AAM 402487979 |
TFEI AAM 402487979 (Ex. P-32) |
| 8 | TFEI AMB 310487482 |
TFEI ABM 310487482 (Ex. P-19) |
There are therefore five Bills of Lading that remain consistent throughout, with what is, given the additional information about Container Number, likely a typographical error in Sr. No. 3 in the letter dated 9th July 1994 from Defendant No. 1. But the Bills of Lading at Sr. Nos. 4 and 5 in the letter dated 9th July 1994 are not mentioned in the letter dated 8th September 1994 from Defendant
11 of 29
S-2533-98 IMPEX-MAERSK-F.DOC
No. 3, and are not annexed to Mr. Shah’s Affidavit. Instead, one Bill of Lading numbered TFEI AMB 310487482 is included. The correspondence that ensues either does not specify the details of the shipments or refers to them by invoice number, save and except for the letter dated 4th December 1995 from Defendant No. 3 to Defendant No. 1,9 in which Defendant No. 3 states that it is holding three Bills of Lading, one of which is at Sr. No. 8 above. Since this point has not been raised, I will assume that these discrepancies are the result of insignificant errors and are not the subject of any dispute, and that we are dealing with the Bills of Lading at Sr. Nos. 1-3 and 6-8 above. These are also the six mentioned in the Affidavit of Mr. Shah at Paragraph 7, although the Plaint, instead of the Bill of Lading at Sr. No. 2 above, refers to the number “408487667” in Paragraph 2.
Re: Issue No. 1
9 Exhibit P-52
12 of 29
S-2533-98 IMPEX-MAERSK-F.DOC
Lading, and within it, Article III contains the responsibilities and liabilities of a carrier. Section 6 provides as follows:
The notice in writing need not be given if the state of the goods has at the time of their receipt been the subject of joint survey or inspection.
In any event the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless the suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered.
In the case of any actual or apprehended loss or damage, the carrier and the receiver shall give all reasonable facilities to each other for inspecting and tallying the goods.
(Emphasis supplied)
Thus, in order to hold a carrier liable for any loss or damage, the suit must be brought within one year of the date of the delivery of the goods or, in the case of non-delivery, on the date on which the goods should have been delivered. The dates on the Bills of Lading range
13 of 29
S-2533-98 IMPEX-MAERSK-F.DOC
from 4th September 1993 to 25th January 1994. Five of the six consignments, according to the information furnished by Defendant No. 1 in its letter dated 9th July 1994, were released between December 1993 and April 1994. However, the letter dated 1st December 1994 from the Plaintiff’s Advocates to Defendant No. 1 states that Defendant No. 1 informed Defendant No. 3 that all of the goods were released between 11th November 1993 and 10th December 1993. Another letter dated 13th March 1995 from the advocates for P&O Containers Limited, the 1st Defendant’s principal, to Defendant No. 2,10 records a confirmation by Defendant No. 2 in a meeting that it received five containers at the end of 1993. There seems to be some confusion about the final date of release of the last container, but the discrepancy is too large to be effected by a few months. Even if we assume that the last date was some time later than 13th April 1994, the suit still ought to have been filed in 1995. It was filed much later, on 16th April 1998. It is therefore barred by limitation. The same view was taken by the Supreme Court in the cases of The East & West Steamship Company, George Town, Madras v S. K. Ramalingam Chettiar ,11 cited by Mr. Ramabhadran, learned Senior Counsel for the 1st Defendant, and American Export Isbrandtsen Lines Inc. & Anr. v Joe Lopez and Anr.12 This Court also reiterated this view in a recent judgment in Jotindra Steel & Tubes Ltd. v M. V. Khalijia.13 The Supreme Court in American Export explicitly states:
10 Exhibit P-43
11 AIR 1960 SC 1058
12 AIR 1972 SC 1405 : (1973) 2 SCC 30
13 MANU/MH/1150/2014
14 of 29
S-2533-98 IMPEX-MAERSK-F.DOC
“Carrier and ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after delivery of goods or date when goods should have been delivered.”
Section 6, then, does not permit any latitude. However, even if we assume that the Plaintiff was unaware of the failure of Defendant No. 1 to deliver the goods against original Bills of Lading until the letter dated 25th January 1995 in which Defendant No. 1 informed the Plaintiff of this, and of the alleged bank guarantee against which the goods were released, the suit ought to have been filed prior to 25th January 1996 or, if we apply the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, by 25th January 1998; i.e., within three years of the accrual of the cause of action. This was not done. The suit is therefore clearly barred by limitation.
Re: Issue No. 3
“In the month of July/August, 1993 the Plaintiffs entered into a Contract with Defendant No. 2 for export of 6 consignments of Indian 100% cotton garments.”
The oral nature of the supposed contract only comes on record in Mr. Shah’s Affidavit, filed on 10th July 2014. In Paragraph 4 of his Affidavit, he explains that he met Mr. Prajyot Prasanna Kumar
15 of 29
S-2533-98 IMPEX-MAERSK-F.DOC
Lunavat, the owner of Defendant No. 2, in 1988. Initially, Mr. Lunavat would place small orders for the garments, and the Plaintiff would raise invoices upon Defendant No. 2. There was no written contract executed and “business was done based on trust.” In Paragraph 5, Mr. Shah admits that since a considerable amount of time has passed since the entering into of the contract, he does not remember its exact date. He states that in or about the second week of July, Mr. Lunavat placed an oral contract with the Plaintiff for the purchase of approximately 45,954 garment pieces, a larger quantity than normal. They allegedly agreed that:
“payment of 100% invoice value would be made at sight at the seller’s bank on presentation of on board Bill of Lading to order of Banco Del Caribe.”
Pursuant to this, the Plaintiff raised seven invoices upon Defendant No. 2: JI/055 dated 15th October 1993; JI/056 dated 15th October 1993; JI/052 dated 9th October 1993; JI/049 dated 24th September 1993; JI/048 dated 24th September 1993; JI/043 dated 26th August 1993 and JI/068 dated 17th January 1994. These are annexed to the Affidavit.14
16 of 29
S-2533-98 IMPEX-MAERSK-F.DOC
the Plaint are a matter of record. All parties concerned seem to have acted on the understanding that a contract did in fact exist between Defendant No. 2 and the Plaintiff. The letter dated 13th March 199515 from the advocates of P&O Containers Limited, Sea Law Consultores, to Defendant No. 2, recorded a meeting held between one Mr. Claus Peter Moeller of Venezolana de Supervisiones Y Ajustes Y Reconocimientos, S.A. (“ Venezolana de Supervisiones ”) and Defendant No. 2 on 9th March 1995. During this meeting, the letter states, Defendant No. 2 allegedly confirmed the receipt of five containers16 from Bombay and admitted to owing the sum of US$ 84,705,13, out of which only US$ 17,000 had been paid. Defendant No. 2 allegedly agreed to pay the balance US$ 67,706,13 plus accrued interest.
15 Exhibit P-43
16 It is not explained why this letter refers to five containers instead of six.
17 Exhibit P-44
18 Exhibit P-51
17 of 29
S-2533-98 IMPEX-MAERSK-F.DOC
US$ 10,000 but has not yet received the payment of US$ 7,000. It states:
“We request you to use your good offices and pursue the drawees of the bill to pay the balance amount without any further delay.”
The receipt of an amount of US$ 10,000 pursuant to the consignments sent from the Plaintiff to Defendant No. 2 shows, I think, the existence of a contractual arrangement between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2. If this did not exist, Defendant No. 3 would not have received any payments. In Mr. Shah’s crossexamination, it is put to him in Q. 25 that the Plaint does not mention an oral contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2; he is excused from answering when Ms. Taneja, the learned counsel for the Plaintiff, accepts that there is no specific mention of it.
Re: Issue Nos. 2, 5 and 6
18 of 29
S-2533-98 IMPEX-MAERSK-F.DOC
“6) The first Defendant had issued the Bills of Lading as agents of “P & O Nedlloyd”. As agents of P & O Nedlloyd the first Defendant has no liability in law or otherwise. The suit is therefore liable to be dismissed.
19 of 29
S-2533-98 IMPEX-MAERSK-F.DOC
the Port of Venezuela, the obligation of the principals of the first Defendant ceased as much as the goods in question have been discharged. The first Defendants would crave leave to refer to and rely upon the documents evidencing that the containers in question were delivered to the Customs authorities. The Plaintiffs have thus no cause of action against these Defendants.”
20 of 29
S-2533-98 IMPEX-MAERSK-F.DOC
Holder, Consignee, Receiver of the Goods, any Person owning or entitled to the possession or the Goods or of this Bill of Lading and anyone acting on behalf of any such Person.” “Person” in turn is defined as including “an individual, group, company or other entity.” Now, Clause 4: ‘Sub-Contracting and Indemnity” states:
(1) The Carrier shall be entitled to sub-contract the Carriage on any terms whatsoever.
(2) The Merchant undertakes that no claim or allegation shall be made against any Person whomsoever by whom the Carriage is performed or undertaken including all Sub-Contractors of the Carrier, other than the Carrier, which imposes or attempts to impose upon any such Person, or any vessel owned by any such Person, any liability whatsoever in connection with the Goods or the Carriage of the Goods, whether or not arising out of negligence on the part of such Person and, if any such claim or allegation should nevertheless be made, to indemnify the Carrier against all consequences thereof. Without prejudice to the foregoing every such Person shall have the benefit of every right, defence, limitation and liberty of whatsoever nature herein contained or otherwise available to the Carrier as if such provisions were expressly for his benefit, and in entering into this contract, the Carrier, to the extent of these provisions, does so not only on his own behalf but also as agent and trustee for such Persons.”
(Emphasis supplied)
21 of 29
S-2533-98 IMPEX-MAERSK-F.DOC
Clearly, Defendant No. 1, as the agent of P&O Containers Limited, cannot be held liable for any loss or damage incurred in the course of the delivery of the goods to Defendant No. 2. The Plaintiff was obligated to bring a suit against its principal, the party in whose name and on whose behalf the Bills of Lading were issued; viz., P&O Containers Limited. This is evident in the Terms and Conditions of the Bills of Lading themselves, as well as being, I think, a well-settled legal principle. The suit is therefore liable to be dismissed on this ground.
19 Exhibit P-45
22 of 29
S-2533-98 IMPEX-MAERSK-F.DOC
“We are aware of the fact that Eximplus has no right at this stage of the case to ask for credit and/or partial payments, but considering the actually poor situation of the local market in Venezuela, running with approximately 6% of inflation per month and increasing, with a drunken demand for the most necessary matters for living and with migration of old, settled enterprises to foreign countries with a better standard of living, we must be happy when Eximplus is accomplishing with what was already agreed upon; it could have been worse.”
23 of 29
S-2533-98 IMPEX-MAERSK-F.DOC
It therefore seems that Defendant No. 1 was in fact then attempting to help the Plaintiff recover its dues from Defendant No. 2. Today, the Plaintiff seeks to saddle the 1st Defendant with that very liability. Defendant No. 3 confirmed, in its letter dated 1st December 1995 to Venezolana de Supervisiones, that it received an initial payment of US$10,000. The fact that payments were actually received pursuant to an understanding arrived at between Venezolana de Supervisiones and the 2nd Defendant makes it clear that Defendant No. 2 was and is aware of its liability, and simply failed or refused to pay. This is further substantiated by the letter dated 10th April 1995 from Banco Del Caribe to Defendant No. 3, in which Banco Del Caribe in no uncertain terms confirms the 2nd Defendant’s refusal to put it in funds and in fact accuses the Customs Authority of complicity in the fraud concerning the bank guarantee:
With reference to your letter dated March 15, 1995, regarding bills suit to us for collection which were returned to you because they were unpaid by the drawees EXIMPLUS REPRESENTACIONES, C.A.,
we hereby inform you that the following original documents, were returned to you due to they were unpaid: P-1953 18/93, P-1953 20/93, P-1953 30/93 & P- 1950 45/94.20
Please be informed that we have never relinquished any rights of your khand Bazar Branch instructions because we never gave a guarantee letter dated 12-11-93 in favour of the local Administrator of Customs, as mentioned in our letter.
20 Again, there is no explanation as to why only four documents are referred to here. However, in the context of what I hold in the rest of the judgment, it is not necessary to examine this in detail.
24 of 29
S-2533-98 IMPEX-MAERSK-F.DOC
By the way we were informed by Mr. Claus Peter Moeller M., Representative of VENEZOLANA DE SUPERVISION Y AJUSTES Y
RECONOCIMIENTOS, that Mr. Zapata, custom broker, of EXIMPLUS REPRESENTACIONES, C.A., utilized a photocopy and modified the data to withdraw the merchandise from customs, but according to the custom law, this procedure should be done with the original document, therefore, we assume there was a complicity with the custom authorities.
We regret for any inconvenience caused in this matter and we are going to take the necessary actions regarding the fraud guarantee was forged by the local Administrator of Customs.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The Plaintiff’s reliefs are for the outstanding sum, plus interest, amounting to Rs. 53,28,687, and for damages amounting to Rs. 2,48,00,000. At the cost of repetition, the relief pertaining to the outstanding sum is evidently only maintainable against Defendant No. 2; Defendant No. 1 cannot possibly bear any contractual liability for the outstanding amounts payable on the invoices, especially given that Defendant No. 2 has made some payments pursuant to them. As far as regards the Plaintiff’s claim for damages, I think that it, too, is maintainable only against Defendant No. 2, and not against Defendant No. 1. There is no nexus between Defendant No. 1’s conduct and the loss that the Plaintiff may have suffered, for which it seeks damages. There is no evidence to suggest that had Defendant No. 1 insisted on effecting delivery against the original
25 of 29
S-2533-98 IMPEX-MAERSK-F.DOC
Bills of Lading, the Plaintiff would have received its dues, because, as borne out by Banco Del Caribe’s letter, Defendant No. 2 had not even put Banco Del Caribe in funds. The Plaintiff produces no correspondence between Banco Del Caribe and Defendant No. 3 to show that had Defendant No. 1 insisted on delivery as against the Bills of Lading, Defendant No. 2 would have made the requisite payments. In fact, it is clear that Defendant No. 2 was required to put Banco Del Caribe in funds and obtain the Bills of Lading before delivery by Defendant No. 1; their refusal to do so is prior in time and therefore (in the absence of any evidence to the contrary) independent of Defendant No. 1’s conduct. The Plaintiff also fails to produce any evidence concerning its contract with Defendant No. 2 to establish such a nexus. The Plaintiff’s cause of action is thus only against Defendant No. 2, who has already acknowledged its liability by making payments to Defendant No. 3 and, it seems, in meetings held with Venezolana de Supervisiones. It is not and cannot be against Defendant No. 1. The suit, therefore, as alleged in Paragraph 8 of the Written Statement, is liable to be dismissed.
26 of 29
S-2533-98 IMPEX-MAERSK-F.DOC
27 of 29
S-2533-98 IMPEX-MAERSK-F.DOC
unable to establish any nexus between the negligence of Defendant No. 1, if any, and the losses that it suffered, which run into loss of business, loss of the credit facility extended by Defendant No. 3, etc. There must be such causality, in law, to claim damages, and the Plaintiff led no such evidence.
Re: Issue Nos. 4, 7 and 9
Re: Issue Nos. 8 and 10
28 of 29
S-2533-98 IMPEX-MAERSK-F.DOC
of action against Defendant No. 1. The Plaintiff is, therefore, not entitled to any interest, either.
Re: Issue No. 11
(G.S. PATEL, J.)
29 of 29
3 issues framed by the court
Was the claim concerning delivery without original bills of lading barred by limitation?
Could the exporter recover unpaid invoice values from the carrier's agent?
Had the exporter established a causal nexus between the alleged negligent delivery and its claimed losses?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
The East & West Steamship Company, George Town, Madras v S. K. Ramalingam ChettiarRelied on¶96
AIR 1960 SC 1058 · Who else cites this
American Export Isbrandtsen Lines Inc. & Anr. v Joe Lopez and Anr.Relied on¶96
AIR 1972 SC 1405 : (1973) 2 SCC 30 · Who else cites this
Jotindra Steel & Tubes Ltd. v M. V. KhalijiaRelied on¶96
MANU/MH/1150/2014
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/S. JEEVES IMPEX
MAERSK LINE INDIA PVT. LTD.
M/S. EXIMPLUX REPRESENTACIONES, C.A.
UNION BANK OF INDIA
G. S. Patel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
