ANIL AND CO Vs. AIR INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,47,820.21 p. has been brought by Mrs. Anil Kapur, who claims that she is doing business of export of readymade garments, handicrafts etc. In the month of April, 1975, she received a number of orders for the export of garments from M/s. Roopali, a concern of New York (impleaded as defendent No. 4), through their agent Miss Gool Vakharia, defendant No.5. The goods thereof valuing Rs. 1,30,604.47 p. were despatched under 9 invoices on 25-7-1975 through the Air India, impleaded as defendant No. 1, for carriage to New York. An air waybill was issued on the booking of that consignment on behalf of the Air India by their agent S. S. Robinson, Janpath, New Delhi. The documents thereof were negotiated through Allahabad Bank to be got cleared on payment, basis. The Allahabad Bank, New Delhi in turn negotiated those documents through the Irwing Trust Co., a bank of New York (impleaded as defendant No. 3). It has also been stated that defendant No. 4 who had initially agreed to open a letter of credit with regard to the value of the goods, did not, in fact, do so.

(2.) The air waybill and the other documents, however, were never got cleared and released by defendant No. 4 from defendant No. 3 in New York, and were returned later through the Allahabad Bank to the plaintiff. What, however, transpired was that the Air India carried those goods to Paris and from there entrusted them to the Trans World Airlines, initially impleaded as defendant No. 2, for carriage to New York. The plaintiff later was informed by defendant No. 1 by their letter dated 29-8-1975 that the consignment was picked up by defendnt No. 4 on 8-8-1975 in New York, and no payment had been received. The plaintiff, therefore, protested and correspondence ensued. Ultimately both the Airlines disowned their liability, and hence this suit.

(3.) Defendant No. 2, Trans World Airlines, contended in written statement that there was no cause of action against them as the privity of contract was between the plaintiff and the Air India only. This prevailed with H. L. Anand, J., and, therefore, the suit qua this defendant was disrnsised.