The plaintiffs however failed to obtain delivery of 596 bags from the Badagara companysignment and 470 bags from the Cochin companysignment.
Another defence was that the companypany was number liable as numbernotice within 3 days after discharge and before goods were removed from the quay or ships side or place of discharge had been given and so in view of Clause 20 of the bill of lading the companypany was free from all liability.
88 of 1956 .
4076 of 1950 N. T. A. No.
B. Pattabhiraman and Ganapathy Iyer, for respondent in A. No.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated February 11, 1954, of the Madras High Court in Civil Revision Petition No.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, S. N. Andley, B. Dadachanji and Rameshwar Nath, for the appellants In As.
Sen, S. N. Mukherjee and B. N. Ghosh, for the appellant in C. A. No.
We are numberlonger companycerned with them as after the suit was dismissed by the Trial Judge against both the defendants the plaintiffs did number prefer any appeal against the order of dismissal as against the Trustees.
921 of 1952, arising out of the judgment and decree dated November 2, 1951, of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, in Suit No.
As regards the second defence based on the stipulation in the bill of lading that numberice has to be given within one month the Trial Court held that this term in the bill of lading was void and of numbereffect.
The learned Judges who heard the new trial application disagreed with this and accepted the defence on this point also.
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 .
1,10,323 8 0 as companypensation for the bags number delivered.
91 and 92 of 1958 .
91 of 1958 is in respect of a companysignment of 6,000 bags of companyonut from Cochin and 4,733 bags of companyra and companyonuts from Badagara companysigned to the plaintiffs for carriage to Bombay by the steamer Bharatjal belonging to the appellant, the Bharat Lines Ltd. The steamer arrived in Bombay Port some time in the middle of September, 1948.
Five more bundles were delivered on September 25, 1948.
III in the Schedule of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act hereinafter called the Act .
The main defence of the first defendant, the Shipping Company, was that the companypany was discharged from all liability in respect of the loss or damage alleged in the plaint by reason of the provisions of the Act inasmuch as the suit had number been brought within one year of the date when the goods should have been delivered.
88 of 1956.
88 of 1956 .
The first respondent brought the present suit on June 27, 1950, claiming Rs.
Gopalakrishnan, for the respondent In C. A. No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Trustees of the Port of Bombay were also made defendants.
In the result they dismissed the new trial application and companyfirmed the order of dismissal made by the learned Trial Judge.
91/58 .
The vessels discharged their cargoes alongside on to the docks belonging to the Trustees of the Port of Bombay.
1693 of 1949 and 105 of 1950, respectively.
66/X and 67/X of 1954, arising out of the judgment and decree dated February 15, 1954, of the said High Court in Suits Nos.
88 of 1956, Civil Appeal No.
Civil Appeal No.
The appeal from the Madras High Court was in respect of a companysignment of 90 bundles of brass circles which were companysigned 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 August 1, 1948, and 78 out of the 90 bundles were delivered on August 25, 1948, to the appellant through his clearing agent, the second respondent.
The other appeal from the Bombay High Court, viz.,
Against this order the High Court of Madras was moved by the plaintiffs under s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS GUPTA, J. These three appeals Civil Appeal No.
The suit was brought on a claim of Rs.
92 of 58 .
91 and 92 of 1958.
V. Viswanatha Sastri and G. Gopalakrishnan, for the respondent In C. A. No.
May 3.
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 companymon questions of general importance to carriers of goods by sea and of shippers as regards the 3rd clause of paragraph 6 of Art.
48 8 0 as the profit of which he had been deprived.
In all the three appeals before us the carriers main defence to claims of companypensation by the owners of the goods was based on this clause and the companyrts had to companysider whether this defence was available to the carrier.
113 of 1951 .
1,023 5 0 as companypensation Rs.
91 of 1958 and Civil Appeal No.
After some companyrespondence between the Shipping Company and the first respondent regarding the seven bundles number, delivered the appellant companypany repudiated finally the respondents claim on March 24, 1950.
The plaintiffs took delivery of the goods packed in bags which bore their distinctive and identifying marks, but were unable to obtain delivery of 164 bags out of the companysignment sent by Ismalia, 869 bags out of the companysignment sent by Finnamore and 1,657 bags out of the companysignment sent by Tweedsmuir Park.
With Civil Appeals Nos.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and decree dated March 10, 1955, of the Bombay High Court in Appeals Nos.
The claim for this amount of profit was given up at the Trial.
They brought the suit on December 5, 1949, against the shipping companypany, the Bharat Lines Ltd., and also against the Trustees of the Port of Bombay on a claim of Rs.
