However, the first plaintiff by letter dated December 5, 1959 wrote to the port authorities that he had been informed by the agents of the vessel The Indian Maritime Enterprises that the entire 53 bundles had been landed and desired to please let us know immediately whether the bundle has been landed if landed let the, information regarding the whereabouts and, if number, kindly companyfirm the short landings.
Apparently, this was to make assurance doubly sure which companyld be gained only when the defendants officials also companyfirmed it.
Anil B. Divan, K. S. Cooper, Vasant C. Kotwal, S. C. Agarwal and P. D. Sharma, for the respondents.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 16th September, 1972 of the High Court of Bombay in Civil Revision No.
Counsel for the plaintiffs, with sweet reasonableness, urges that the interested ipse dixit of the agents of the vessel may number by itself be sufficient to impute clear knowledge of the discharge from the ship into the port of goods of which the Port Trust dis claimed knowledge of whereabouts.
Long later, on January 22, 1960, the Port Trust informed the first plaintiff that the bundle under reference had been out turned as landed but missing.
S. Nariman, Additional Solicitor General of India, P. Bhartari, R. Zaiwala and B. S. Bhesania, for the appellant.
The Court significantly highlights the fact that number only they did numberrectification work for the Bundh they also misappropriated the amount entrusted to them for the purpose of rectification.
It was companytended that the plaintiffs, for certain, came to know of the landing of the missing bundle only on January 22, 1960.
The plaintiffs made an enquiry Whether the bundle has been landed, if landed, let the information regarding the whereabouts and, if number, companyfirm the short landings.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Bombay Port Trust the defendant, and number the appellant on September 12, 1959.
342 of 1972.
1960,, the port officer companycerned wrote I beg to inform you that the bundle under reference has been outturned as Landed but missing.
Both sides The Bombay Port Trust, appellant, and the New Great Insurance Co. a nationalised institution , the companytesting respondent agree before us that while there is only a short point of law in the case, a large section of the business companymunity, as well as the Port Trust, are affected by the ambiguity of the legal situation and an early pronouncement by this Court on the law of limitation applicable to companysignees actions for short delivery by the Port Trust is necessary.
263 of 1967.
Further reminders by the plaintiffs proved fruitless till It last on January 22.
1147.42 has sailed slowly into the Supreme Court by special leave.
On December 5, 1959, the first plaintiff brought to the numberice of the Board that the above mentioned bundle has been landed and they agents of the vessel hold receipt from you the Board .
The goods were discharged in the docks into the custody of the.
