LAKSHMINARAIN RAMNIWAS Vs. N V VEREENIGDE NEDERLANDSCHE SCHEEPRAARTMAATSCHAPPIJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for stay of a suit on the basis of a clause contained in a bill of lading that all actions thereunder were to be brought before the courts at Amsterdam or Rotterdam. The plaintiff, a firm carrying on business at Calcutta, was the endorsee of a bill of lading issued by the defendant No. 1 described in the plaint as the owners or charterers of a vessel "Hereford Beacon". The defendant No. 2 is described as the agent of the defendant No. 1 carrying on business in Calcutta. The defendant No. 3 are the Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta and the defendant No. 4 is an insurance company also carrying on business within the jurisdiction of this Court.

(2.) The bill of lading was issued at Antwerp by the defendant No. 1 on 16-3-1956, the shippers being Countinho Caro and Co. Ltd. of London and the consignee the Bank of China, Calcutta. The goods shipped were described in the bill of lading as 400 pieces "used flat bottom steel rails". According to the document, however, the Condition of the goods, their measurement, weight, brand, quality and value were unknown and any reference thereto in the document was for the purpose of calculation of freight only. Under the bill of lading the "shipper" included an endorsee of the document and the contract of carriage was subject to the Hague rules as adopted by the International Convention at Brussels on 25-8-1924 unless there was any mention to the contrary. Clauses 25 and 26 of the bill of lading run as follows : 25. Law of application -- In so far as anything has not been dealt with by the provisions of this Bill of Lading the law of the Netherlands shall apply. 26. Jurisdiction -- All actions under this contract of carriage shall be brought before the Court at Amsterdam or Rotterdam and no other Court shall have jurisdiction with regard to any such action unless the carrier appeals to another jurisdiction or voluntarily submits himself thereto.

(3.) The substance of the plaintiff's complaint in the plaint filed on 18-11-1957 is as given below: