NIPPON YEESEN KAISHA LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in this second appeal has to succeed on a very subtle and convincing point pressed forth by Mr. S. Krishna Srinivasan appearing for M/s King and Partridge, learned counsel for the appellant. The first defendant in the suit is the appellant. The respondents are the plaintiffs. The first defendant is a carrier in respect of a particular quantity of urea shipped from Tokyo to Nagapattinam. The plaintiffs are the consignees. The shippers of consignors were Mitsubishi Corporation, Tokyo. The plaintiffs sued the first defendant and its agent the second defendant for damages to the tune of Rs. 3,045-20 for short delivery to the extent of 1.100 metric tons of urea. Both the courts below have countenanced the case of the plaintiffs. As such the first defendant is mulcted with the decree as asked for.

(2.) In this second appeal directed against the judgement and decree of the lower appellate Court this court, at the time of its admission, formulated the following substantial questions of law - Whether the trial court and the first appellate Court were right in decreeing the suit against the carrier in view of the qualified bill of lading and the provisions of S.3 of the Bills of Lading Act ? and when does the cause of action start accruing for the purpose of Art.III, rule 6 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, if the discharge of the cargo is spread over twenty days ?

(3.) Mr. Krishna Srinivasan, learned counsel for the appellant-first defendant, was more on the first substantial question of law. The endorsement or the bill of lading marked in this case as