PULKIT HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. OWNERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Thakker, learned advocate appears on behalf of plaintiff in this undefended admiralty suit. He argues out his client's case. He demonstrates from the exhibits, his client had, acting in tandem with a purchase order received, having essence of timely shipment and delivery, entered into a contract of carriage in respect of the vessel. He relies on an English case of Alimport Vs. Soubert, 2000 2 LloydsRep 447, wherein Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court) answered a preliminary issue saying, inter alia, terms of bill of lading constitutes a contract.

(2.) The bill of lading, though dated 15th Dec., 2014, did not give correct date. Relevant exhibit regarding movement of the vessel establishes that it reached the port of loading on 26th Dec., 2014.

(3.) On basis of incorrect entries in the bill of lading, being one of the documents for purpose of payment under the letter of credit, payment was obtained from plaintiff's banker. Plaintiff's purchaser, however, had cancelled the order on time overrun. Plaintiff mitigated damages by entering into a high seas sale and dealt with the shipment at value less than the value of contracted sale. The difference is claim in the plaint.