SATNAM OVERSEAS LTD Vs. M V OOCL ABILITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs have filed the suit for recovery of US Dollars 84870/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realisation. By prayer clause (b) plaintiffs want that vessels, namely defendant No. 1, defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 3 along with their hull, engine, tackle, machinery, boats, apparels and other paraphernalia be arrested till the plaintiffs' claim to the extent of US Dollars 84870 along with interest is satisfied. By prayer clause (c)plaintiffs want that the aforesaid vessels namely defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 be detained condemned and sold and the sale proceeds thereof be applied towards plaintiffs' claim in the suit. Plaintiffs have also sought costs in terras of prayer clause (b ). Defendant No. 1 is the vessel by name m. v. OOCL ABILITY, defendant No. 2 is another vessel m. v. KUO wei defendant No. 3 is vessel/vessels that are sister ships of defendant No. 1 or defendant No,2 or any other vessels belonging to defendant nos. 4 to 8. Defendant No. 4 is a company organised under the Foreign Laws and doing its business through its agent namely defendant no. 5. Defendant No. 5 is joined in its capacity as agent of defendant No. 4. Defendant No. 6 is a company who had issued Multimodal Transfer document and according to the plaintiffs defendant No. 6 was agent of defendant No. 4. According to plaintiffs defendant No. 7 is the division of Defendant No. 6 and they have been joined in their capacity accordingly. Defendant no. 8 is a foreign company with whom plaintiffs had entered into suit agreement as regards sale of sesame, more particularly set out in the invoices which are at Exhibits P-5 to P-8.

(2.) IT is the case of the plaintiffs that pursuant to the sale contracts at Exhibits P-1 to P-4 plaintiffs agreed to sale sesame of various quantities as set out in the invoices which are at Exhibits P-5 to P-8 to defendant no. 8. According to plaintiffs defendant No. 4 issued mates receipts which are at Exhibits P-9 to P-12 and subsequently defendant No. 6, in their capacity as agent of defendant Nos. 4 and 5 are said to have executed Bills of Lading which are at Exhibits P-13 to P-15 and one bill of lading in regard to invoice No. P-8 is executed by the company by name Ever Trans Shipping services Ltd. which bill of lading is at Exhibit p-16.

(3.) ACCORDING to plaintiffs, the goods were to be delivered to the defendant No. 8 at the address mentioned in the cause title and more particularly set out in the bills of lading at exhibits P-13 to P-16. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that the bills of lading were to be routed through the bank and defendant No. 8 were to pay the costs of the goods to the bank and get the bills of lading and retire the goods from the port. According to the plaintiffs Oriental Bank of Commerce was the bankers operating in india and the plaintiffs had forwarded the original bill of lading to the Oriental Bank of Commerce and that appropriate endorsements were passed on the documents at Exhibits P-33 to P-35 thereby showing that the endorsements were passed enabling the said bankers namely Bank of Communication, Hongkong Branch to receive monies on behalf of plaintiffs. The document at Exhibits P-33, P-34 and P-35 in the submission of the plaintiffs are the documents by which it is clear that Oriental bank of Commerce had passed necessary endorsement directing that money should be paid to the Bank of Communications and the bills of Lading should be handed over to defendant No. 8 upon payment of costs of the goods. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs Bankers returned the bills of lading at exhibits P-13 to P-16 as unpaid bills of lading and thereafter plaintiffs made enquiries with the defendant No. 8 and defendant No. 8 accepted that they received the suit goods. It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiffs called upon the defendant No. 8 to pay the costs of the goods and the defendant No. 8 promised to pay the costs of the goods. Plaintiffs admit that no payment was ultimately made by the defendant no. 8. It is the case of the plaintiffs that though bills of Lading issued by defendant No. 6 at exhibits P-13 and P-15 and, the Bill of Lading at Exhibit P-16 issued by Evertrans Shipping services Ltd. , were lodged with the bank, on account of collusion between defendant Nos. 4 to 8, and the goods came to be delivered to defendant No. 8 without payment of costs of the goods and to that extent plaintiffs have suffered loss in terms of money.