In a second appeal regarding a contract dispute for lost shipping documents, the High Court of Madras rejected the bank's appeal. The court held the bank liable as the principal for its agent's negligence, dismissing the appeal without admitting it.
Second Appeal failed and is dismissed without being admitted; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on Delivered on 16.10.2019 30.10.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
S.A.No.1013 of 2019
and CMP No.21848 of 2019
M/s.ICICI BANK Chennai Branch, Post Box No.1610,
Dare House Annexe, 44, Moore Street, Chennai 600 001. ..Appellant/Appellant/1st Defendant
vs.
12-B, South Phase,
Guindy Industrial Estate,
Guindy, Chennai 600 032. ...2nd Respondents/2nd Respondent/ 2nd Defendant
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree dated 10.02.2017 in AS No.383 of 2014 on the file of VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai modifying the Judgment and Decree dated 17.08.2012 in OS No.9044 of 2008 on the file of the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Krishnaswamy for Mr.S.Vasudevan
1/7
J U D G E M E N T
The first defendant in OS No.9044 of 2008 having suffered a decree for damages to the tune of Rs.3,87,585/- at the hands of the Lower Appellate Court has come up with this Second Appeal.
2/7
3/7
not proved that it suffered loss of reputation by tangible evidence. Upon the said conclusion, the Trial Court decreed the suit holding both the defendants jointly and severally liable for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-. Aggrieved, the first defendant preferred an appeal in AS No.383 of 2014 and the second defendant filed an Appeal in AS No.433 of 2014. The Lower Appellate Court, upon a re-consideration of evidence, agreed with the Trial Court on the question of liability for the loss. The Lower Appellate Court, however, concluded that there could be no decree against the second defendant, since the plaintiff has not prayed for a decree against the second defendant. On the quantum of liability, the Lower Appellate Court found that the plaintiff had shown the value of the goods at Rs.3,87,585/-, while insuring them and therefore the plaintiff would be entitled only to said sum of Rs.3,87,585/- being the value of the goods. On the above findings, the Lower Appellate Court partially reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and granted a decree for a sum of Rs.3,87,585/- with interest at 9% as against the first defendant only. Aggrieved, the first defendant is on appeal before this Court.
4/7
documents and the documents were not received by the banker of the importer in time. By the time the duplicates were made ready and sent to the importer’s Banker at Malaysia, the importer had rejected the goods, since they are perishable in nature. The conclusions of the Courts below based on the evidence available on record, make it clear that the goods were rejected by the importer because of the delay in forwarding the documents caused by the negligence on the part of the second defendant, with whom the first defendant had entrusted the job of transmitting the documents.
5/7
Appellate Court had rightly held that in the absence of prayer or in the absence of counter claim by the first defendant against the second defendant, the Trial Court was not justified in making the second defendant jointly and severally liable.
jv
6/7
To
S.A.No.1013 of 2019
and CMP No.21848 of 2019
aa24/02/2020
7/7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the collecting bank is liable for loss caused by its agent's negligence in transmitting shipping documents.
Whether the principles of vicarious liability apply to hold the principal liable for the agent's breach of contract.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. ICICI Bank Chennai Branch
M/s. Gayathri Exports Rep. By its Proprietor, Mr.K.Chandru Sekar
M/s. DHL Express (India) Pvt Ltd.
R. Subramanian
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
