K S ABDUL SATTAR Vs. ISSAK ADAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The carriers by sea, who are the defendants accepted goods for carriage by sea from Bombay to the port of Sharjah, the scheduled voyage being of ten days. The ship received aboard, unmanifested goods resulting in seizure and detention of the ship at Bombay by the Customs Authorities. Therefore, the ship did not leave the port of embarkation. Consequently, the goods were delivered at the post of destination. Rule 6 of Article III of the Indian Carriage of Goods by Sea Act hereinafter referred to as "the Act", lays down that the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage, unless suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goods for the date when the goods "should have been delivered". What, in the circumstances of this case, is the date on which the goods "should have been delivered"? This is the question arising in this suit.

(2.) The plaintiff No. 1 exporter and importer of chemicals and machinery, carrying on business in India and the plaintiff No. 2, a Corporation incorporated under the laws of United Arab Emirates, seek to recover from the defendants who are, respectively, the owner and the captain of the motor vessel M.S.V., Issaki, a sum of Rs. 1,60,358.13 paise as damages representing the value of the quantity of Hydrochloric Acid which the vessel failed to deliver at the port of Sharjah in accordance with the contract of carriage.

(3.) It should be stated, at the outset that the defendants have not filed written statements, though they were served in 1975. The defendant No. 1 is represented by Attorneys M/s. Gordhandas and Fozdar who are present with their Counsel. The defendant No. 2 has not appeared at all. Since there is no written-statement by the defendants, I see no impediment in proceeding under the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure to make a decree as prayed. However, Mrs. Gupta, learned Counsel for the defendant No. 1 urged that having regard to Rule 6 of Article III to the Schedule to the Act, this suit ought to have been instituted within one year from the date when the goods "should have been delivered" to the plaintiffs at the port of Sharjah in United Arab Emirates. This was not done. It is, therefore, urged that the suit is instituted beyond the period of limitation laid down in the above rule. Consequently, according to the above rule, the defendants are discharged from all liability in respect of loss of or damage to the goods. I have heard Counsel on this question.