RAA PROJECTS LIMITED Vs. SEAWAYS SHIPPING LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff's loss is plain to see; but the form of the claim is questionable. THE appearing defendants say that the plaintiff has barked up a wrong tree in chasing them.

(2.) The claim is for damages. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant' is an agent of the defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4. THE defendant No.2 is part of what the plaintiff describes as the OOCL group that owns several vessels. THE defendant Nos.3 and 4 are foreign companies without any apparent presence in India.

(3.) Finally, the plaintiff relies on a proforma bill of lading allegedly issued by the defendant No.4. The plaintiff says that notwithstanding such proforma bill of lading, which, according to it, demonstrates a concluded contract, the goods were ultimately destroyed by the authorities in the United Kingdom for which a two-day notice was received from the defendants by the plaintiff. The plaintiff complains that it was due to the acts and conduct of the defendants that the plaintiff lost its goods and not only lost its investment of about Rs.50,00,000/- but was also slapped with a demand to pay a sum in excess of ? 8,000 as costs of destruction of the goods.