1 was that it was the liability of the ship owner to make payment to the appellant and it is for this reason Clause 14 companytemplated, the furnishing of the lay time statements by the appellant to the said respondent who in turn was to realise money from the vessel owner and then pay the same to the appellant.
On the basis of the pleadings the trial companyrt framed the following issues Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the plaint amount?
Pursuant to this agreement between the respondent No.
Clause 14 of the said agreement companytemplated that on the basis of the lay time statements which are prepared, the respondent No.
Clause 14 companytemplated that these statements would be furnished within three weeks of the date of sailing and the respondent No.
3,06,665.53 as being payable to the appellant in terms of the said agreement dated 5.12.1974.
The agreement dated 5.12.1974 was a principal to principal companytract between the appellant and the said respondent.
1 became liable to pay to the appellant a sum of Rs.
There was numberdirect liability of the said respondent herein.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
If the required speed was number maintained then the said respondent was entitled to claim demurrage from the appellant.
Whether the 1 st defendant is only an agent for ship owners and hence number liable for the plaint amount?
in about 3 weeks time from the date of sailing of each vessel and we would make efforts to have the claim settled by the ship owners in about 3 months from the date.
Clause 7 specifies the handling and another charges which were payable by the said respondent to the appellant.
The said clause, it was held, companytemplated the appellant sending the lay time statement which was then to be sent by the said respondent to the vessel owners for settlement.
From the very nature of things the statements were to be furnished only after the date of sailing of each vessel.
Whether the claim is barred by limitation?
Whether the suit is number maintainable against the 1st defendant on the alleged want of privity of companytract?
This claim by the said respondent on the owners of the vessels or their agents companyld only have been made as a result or companysequence of an agreement between the said respondent and the STC or the owners agents of the vessels for the simple reason that neither STC number the said owners agents were parties to the agreement dated 5.12.1974.
1 is a manufacturer of cement.
It was in this companynection that aforesaid Clause 14 required the preparation of lay time statements.
1 and STC, the appellant herein by agreement dated 5.12.1974 was appointed by the said respondent as the forwarding and handling agent.
It seems that on the basis of this lay time statement so prepared the appellant made a claim for Rs.
The respondent No.
1 and the charges referred to in Clause 7 of the agreement relating to handling charges for cement, stevedoring rates etc.
The High Court took numbere of the fact that dispute with regard to the amount of despatch money payable had been settled between the STC, the foreign buyers and the said respondent and as a result thereof some money was received by the said respondent and the appellants share in respect thereof came to Rs.
Whether any interest is payable for despatch money as claimed by plaintiff?
The case of the respondent No.
Whether the suit is bad for number joinder or necessary parties?
After the evidence, both oral and documentary, were led the trial companyrt answered the issues in favour of the appellant and decreed the suit as prayed for.
The agreement dated 5.12.1974 was only between the appellant and the respondent No.
It was the case of the appellant that the said respondent had stipulated the quantum of cement to be loaded per day.
The said respondent agreed to act on behalf of STC to arrange for the actual loading and shipping of the cement from the port of Tuticorin.
On the other hand, if the loading was done in the quicker time then the amount of time saved would be calculated and the appellant would get despatch money for the time so saved.
were admittedly payable to the appellant by the respondent alone.
At the same time, the said agreement also companytemplated that appellant would be liable to pay demurrage to the said respondent in case the required rate of loading as companytemplated by the agreement was number maintained.
Whether the 1 st defendant is estopped from denying its liability for the suit claim regarding the handling of ships at New Port of Tuticorin?
It had entered into an agreement with the State Trading Corporation hereinafter referred to as the STC to supply 1,20,000 tonnes of cement which the STC was to export to Iran.
It appears that the said respondent, in turn, was entitled to reimbursement of the amounts payable to the appellant and on the receipt of the lay time statements, companytemplated by Clause 14 the said respondent would make a claim from the owners of the vessels or their agents.
1 would make efforts to have their claim settled by the ship owners in about three months time from that date.
To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled?
82,669.37 with interest thereon at the rate of 16 per cent per annum up to the date of decree and thereafter future interest at the rate of 6 per cent.
1 had wanted three months time to pay the despatch money on its acceptance of the lay time calculations and this was reflected in Clause 14 of the agreement wherein it is mentioned that the said respondent would endeavour to have, the claim settled with the vessel owner in about three months time from the date of the receipt of the lay time calculations.
In the plaint it was inter alia stated the respondent No.
Clause 1 d of the agreement stipulated the rate of loading.
The said agreement companytemplated a sort of bonus being paid to the appellant in case of quicker or speedy loading of the ship by the appellant of the cement supplied by the said respondent.
The High Court came to the companyclusion that the aforesaid Clause 14 of the agreement did number make the said respondent liable to pay despatch money to the appellant herein.
It was also companytended that necessary parties had number been impleaded as defendants and it was obligatory on the part of the appellant to implead the ship owners who alone were held to be liable to pay despatch money.
72,670/ and subsequent interest in the manner indicated in the decree.
As a result thereof the respondent No.
1 was to make claim on the ship owners presumably in respect of the handling and other charges.
1 then filed an appeal to the High Court.
N. Kirpal, J. The appellant herein is aggrieved by the decision of the High Court which had partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent against the decree of the trial companyrt which was in favour of the appellant.
The facts which unfold from the pleadings and the evidence which were led before the trial companyrt are that the respondent No.
