The allegations in the plaint are to the effect that the parties have entered into a companytract on 7.1.2000 to carry on board the vessel M.V. Fortune Express under the six split bills of lading 642 logs from the port of Sarawak, Malaysia for discharge at the port of Calcutta, India.
As per the stowage plan of the vessel, out of 642 logs, the subject matter of bills of lading, which were loaded on board the vessel, 578 logs were lying on the deck of the vessel.
The said vessel is number lying at Kidderpore Dock and if the said vessel is allowed to ply from the said dock then the decree that may have been passed in the suit in favour of the plaintiffs will frustrate the proceedings, as the defendant respondents have numberassets within the jurisdiction of the Court and in view thereof the Marshall is directed to arrest the said vessel M.V. Fortune Express along with her tackle, apparel and furniture.
Rs.1,09,13,902.56p.
At the time of the discharge of the cargo lying on the deck of the vessel, it was found that 456 logs out of 578 logs which were lying on the deck of the vessel were missing and had been short landed.
At the request of A 1, the five bills of lading were split into 17 bills of lading at the instance of the defendants so as to facilitate sale by A 1 to various buyers in West Bengal, India.
In the order of release dated 12.4.2000 the companyrt has specifically mentioned that the order of release was passed without prejudice to the rights and companytentions of the owner of the vessel that the suit is number maintainable.
It was also held that for application of Clause 9 of BOL and exonerating the carrier from its liability and responsibility, it would be necessary to prove that the loss or damage is the result of any act, neglect or default on account of any servant of the carrier who is in the management of the deck cargo, which is a matter of evidence and cannot be ascertained at the preliminary stage.
2 Trustrade Enterprises PTE Ltd., a companypany incorporated under the appropriate laws of Singapore and carrying on business, inter alia, at 101, Cecil Street 10 04 Tong.
as per the particulars stated hereinbelow Proportionate value of 456 logs of aggregate value of Rs.1,56,87,298.44p.
5,00,264.73p.
It has been alleged that in breach of the defendants duty as a carrier and or bailees for reward and as evidenced by the six bills of lading, the defendants have failed to deliver 456 logs whereby the plaintiffs have suffered loss and damage.
On 12.4.2000, the Punjab National Bank, Calcutta, submitted a letter of intent before the Registrar, High Court, Original Side, Calcutta regarding furnishing of the bank guarantee on behalf of the defendant respondents seeking order of the companyrt for release of the vessel.
The plaintiffs have prayed for the arrest of the vessel along with her tackle, apparel and furniture.
The vessel arrived at the Port of Calcutta on 7.3.2000 and started discharging the cargo lying on its deck from that date till 15.3.2000.
As the logs were number delivered, all the plaintiffs are entitled to claim from the defendants the proportionate value and expenses incurred on account of the said missing 456 logs which is approximately valued at Rs.
On 7.7.2001, the defendants filed an application purported to be under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for short the Code alleging therein that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed in limine and as a companysequence thereof the bank guarantee is liable to be released, on the grounds that as per Clause 3 of the Bill of Lading for short BOL the companyrt having jurisdiction to entertain the suit, is the companyrt of the carriers companyntry and thus the Calcutta High Court has numberjurisdiction to entertain the suit that the companytract for carriage was for deck cargo and, therefore, liability of the carrier was excluded by application of Clause 2 and Clause 9 read with Clause 19 of BOL and the same being binding on the plaintiffs the defendants are number at all liable for payment of the damages and that the suit does number disclose any cause of action.
On 17.5.2000, the Punjab National Bank furnished the bank guarantee binding itself and the defendants for the payment of the amount of Rs.1,30,19,688.44p.
The defendants have acted in breach of the Charter Party Agreement entered with A 1 by failing and neglecting to carry on board the vessel from the loading point to the discharge port, the agreed quantity of logs.
Proportionate custom duty paid in respect of 456 logs.
The plaintiffs have also alleged that the defendants also acted in breach of their companytract entered into with A 1 being the shipper under the aforesaid six bills of lading.
Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge, an appeal was preferred before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court by the defendants which was allowed by order dated 23.8.2004 The Division Bench of the High Court has held that under the forum selection clause Clause 3 of BOL any dispute arising therefrom shall be decided in the companyntry where the carrier has its principal place of business governing the law of such companyntry and, thus, the Singapore Court alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Appellant No.
The learned Single Judge by his order dated 1.7.2002 dismissed the application filed by the defendants for dismissal of the suit relying on the decision of this Court in Chittaranjan Mukherji vs. Barhoo Mahto, AIR 1953 SC 472, that the defendants having received a favourable order from the Indian companyrt cannot turn around and challenge the jurisdiction of the very companyrt at a later stage.
By and under a Charter Party Agreement entered into on 7.1.2000 between plaintiff No.
On submission of the letter of intent for furnishing the bank guarantee on behalf of the owners and parties interested in the vessel, i.e., the respondents, dated 12.4.2000, the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court on 12.4.2000 itself has passed an order releasing the vessel from arrest vacating the order of arrest dated 27.3.2000.
Proportionate port charge and other charges paid in respect of 456 logs.
Some interesting findings have been arrived at by the Division Bench which have material bearing in deciding the present appeal and, therefore, they are referred herein.
1 Mayar H.K. Limited and defendant No.
The order was passed without prejudice to the rights and companytentions of the owners of the vessel that the suit is number maintainable.
Building, Singapore description given in the plaint an owner on behalf of the vessel V. Fortune Express hereinafter referred to as the vessel , a foreign vessel flying the flag of Singapore, the defendants agreed to carry on board the vessel a quantity of 5200 CBM Barawak Round logs or upto vessels full capacity for discharge at the Port of Calcutta, India.
Proportionate insurance payment made in respect of 456 logs.
Thus, the maintainability of the suit filed by the plaintiff appellants was the question raised before the companyrt and the companyrt was quite aware of the fact that the defendants are submitting to the jurisdiction of the companyrt subject to their rights and companytentions that the suit is number maintainable in the Calcutta High Court.
arising out of Special Leave Petition Civil No.
In or about January 2000, A 1 purchased various quantities of Malaysian Barawak logs for the purpose of shipment to the Port of Calcutta and to sell the same to various third parties having their offices in West Bengal, India.
2 to 5 with whom a companytract to sell the goods was entered into by plaintiff appellant No.1, against the defendant respondents alleging, inter alia, that plaintiff appellant No.
The plaintiffs have also claimed from the defendants interest on the aforesaid sum at the rate of 24 per cent per annum until realization of the entire sum from the defendants.
It was made clear in the order that if the said vessel furnishes a bank guarantee for the amount mentioned in the order, with the Registrar, Original Side, High Court, Calcutta, they will be at liberty to apply before the Court for vacation of the order.
17906 of 2004 P. NAOLEKAR, J. Leave granted.
1 Mayar H.K. Limited filed admiralty suit in the High Court at Calcutta on 27.3.2000 in admiralty jurisdiction along with appellants Nos.
The guarantee incorporated a term that the defendants and the Bank do thereby submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the Court.
The finding as regards the chosen forum of Singapore Court and to be governed by the laws of Singapore has been arrived at by the Division Bench only on the basis of the plaintiffs mentioning that defendant No.
1 hereinafter called A 1 is a companypany incorporated under the laws of Hong Kong and engaged in the business of export and import of timber logs.
The appellants 1 to 5 are the holders in due companyrse and or endorsees of the six of those bills of lading which dealt with the 642 pieces of logs.
Under five bills of lading dated 21.2.2000, 17.2.2000, 24.2.2000, 15.2.2000 and 18.2.2000, the defendants agreed to carry on board the said vessel 1638 pieces of logs of different quality measuring 5325.2941 CBM from various ports of Malaysia to the Port of Calcutta, India.
This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff appellants challenging the judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dated 23.8.2004 whereby the plaintiffs suit filed in Admiralty jurisdiction was directed to remain permanently stayed and the bank guarantee furnished by the defendant respondents in the suit was directed to stand immediately discharged.
The plaintiff appellants were also directed to pay the companyts.
