UNION OF INDIA Vs. CHINOY CHABLANI AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by Chinoy Chablani & Co., a firm carrying on business in Calcutta. The petitioner is the defendant in Suit No. 14 of 1975. The said suit was instituted by the Union of India as the first plaintiff and the Food Corporation of India as the second plaintiff against the petitioner. The said suit was instituted on or about the 14th of January, 1975, claiming a decree for Rs. 73,285/-. The case of the plaintiffs in the plaint is as follows:

(2.) It has been alleged that the plaintiff No. 2 was acting on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, in respect of importation of fertilisers and food-stuff and on the 31st October, 1973, one Mineral and Metal Trading Corporation of India Ltd., had shipped on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture, Union of India, on board the said vessel "S.S. Sudga" in an apparently good order and condition 81,986 bags of Urea of the total gross weight of 4181286 kg. and net weight of 4099300 kg. and further 820 empty spare bags from the port of Odessa in U.S.S.R. to be properly and safely carried to any port in India. A bill of lading was issued by the said Black Sea Steamship Company duly acknowledging the receipt of the said goods on board the vessel- "S.S. Sudga" and agreeing to carry the same in accordance with the terms and conditions mentioned in the said bill of lading. The said vessel had discharged at Visakhapatnam 51933 bags of Urea of which 2242 were cut and torn bags and further 276 bags containing sweepings only. It is further alleged that the said vessel completed discharge of the goods on or about the 15th/ 16th January, 1974. The said vessel had discharged at the port of Calcutta 28747 bags of Urea of which 3201 were cut and torn bags and further 50 bags containing sweepings only. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the said loss occurred due to negligence and wrongful acts of the shippers and/or its employees and/or its agents. The plaintiffs in the premises had instituted the suit. This application is by the defendant in the suit for taking the plaint off the file and alternatively for dismissing the suit as this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit and alternatively for stay of the suit.

(3.) The first question is, whether the plaint should be taken off the file because it does not disclose any cause of action. Under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure the plaint should he rejected where the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. The grievance of the plaintiffs is against the Black Sea Steamship Company for their negligence. The cause of action against the defendant was sought to be justified in this case on behalf of the respondents to this application by virtue of sub-clause (3) of Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act. The said section provides as follows:--