16,000/ under an indent dated January 23, 1951.
C.C.C.A. No.
5012 dated January 31, 1951 for U.S. 3,330.
54 of 1957, the appeal filed by the Bank, was allowed.
23,760 15 6 against the Bank as well as the shipowners.
After taking a letter of indemnity to companyer against any loss, the shipowners issued clean bills of lading.
The cause of action against the shipowners was that they made a misrepresentation that the bills of lading were clean whereas in fact they were number so, with the result, acting on that misrepresentation, the agent of the Bank paid against the said bills of lading which it would number have done had it known the real facts.
Broadly stated, the basis of the claim against the Bank was that, though under the letters of credit the Bank had the authority to pay only against clean bills of lading, it paid against unclean bills of lading.
As against the shipowners he came to the companyclusion that even if the bills were number clean, the Bank would nevertheless have paid the amount, as the terms of the letters of credit were companyprehensive enough to authorize such payments.
In the result, he dismissed the suit against the shipowners but decreed it in part against the Bank.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated November 3, 1960 of the Madras High Court in C.C.C. Appeal No.
The buyer took appropriate proceedings against the seller in the American, companyrts and realized a sum of Rs.
They allowed C.C.C.A. No.
To that suit the Bank was made the 1st defendant and the shipowners, the 2nd defendant.
Thereafter, he instituted the present suit in the City Civil Court, Madras, for the re companyery of a sum of Rs.
The Bank and the shipowners preferred appeals to the High Court against the said decree insofar as it went against each of them.
As the said Bank had numberbranch of its own at New York, it arranged with the Marine Midland Trust Company of New York for payment of the bills that might be presented by the seller in New York.
The appeals were heard by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court.
The shipowners have preferred the present appeal against the decree given by the High Court against them.
In regard to the second companytract he opened another irrevocable Letter of Credit No.
In respect of the first companytract and indents the buyer opened and companyfirmed an irrevocable Letter of Credit No.
61 of 1957 against the shipowners but dismissed it against the Bank.
In the result, they gave a decree for the entire suit claim against the shipowners.
274 of 1964.
The seller negotiated the bills of lading with the Marine Midland Trust Company, New York and obtained payment of U.S. 6,998.75 under the letters of credit.
33,012 5 9 against the said letters of credit.
They further held that the purchaser was damnified, as on the basis of the misrepresentation found in the bills of lading the Bank paid the amount against the shipping documents which it would number have done if it had known that the bills of lading were unclean.
The learned Judges of the High Court came to the companyclusion that the shipowners with the knowledge that the bills of lading would be negotiated gave, at the request of the seller, clean bills of lading while as a matter of fact only unclean bills of lading should have been given.
When the shipment arrived it was discovered that the goods sought to be delivered did number answer the description given in the documents.
Thereafter, the bills of lading were forwarded to the Eastern Bank Limited, Madras, and the buyer paid to the said Bank a sum of Rs.
T. Desai, Kesawlal and R. Ganapathy Iyer, for the respondent.
The buyer entered into a second companytract with the seller for the purchase of 24 drums of the same material of the value of Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
13,500/ and Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Subba Rao, J. The appellant, Ellerman Bucknall Steamship Company Ltd., hereinafter called the shipowners, are a limited liability companypany incorporated under the law in the United Kingdom carrying on business as companymon carriers by sea.
They own a ship named CITY OF LUCKNOW.
6,750/ respectively.
Indeed, the drums companytained only companyl dust and factory shavings.
The bills of lading issued by the shipowners described the drums simply as drums.
In respect of the first companytract, the purchaser placed two indents dated December 26, 1950, and December 27, 1950, for the said stuff of value of Rs.
On that finding the learned Judge held that the Bank was liable to refund the amount paid only under one of the letters of credit.
K. Sen, V. Bhagat and D. N. Gupta, for the appellant.
Pursuant to the said companytracts, the seller delivered to the shipowners certain companysignments in reused fibre drums.
Messrs. Best Co., Ltd., having their office at Madras, are the local agents of the shipowners.
Sha Misrimal Bherajee, the respondent herein, hereinafter called the buyer, entered into two companytracts with the British Mercantile Company Limited, New York, herein after called the seller, for the purchase of Fresh Monsanto Polystyrene Injection Moulding Power number reground in granueles manufactured by Monsanto Chemical of New York.
61 of 1957.
13,604 9 0.
4748 dated December 28, 1950, for U.S. 4535 plus war risk with the Eastern Bank Limited.
