9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1472X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al exercise undertaken and the goods being damaged, then the responsibility lies on it as rightly found by the Courts below - appeal fails and is dismissed. - S.A. No. 917 of 2016 & C.M.P. No. 18624 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 31-1-2017 - M.M. Sundresh, J. Shri Joy Thattil Ittoop, Counsel, for the Appellant. Shri R. Sundar and V.G. Suresh Kumar, Counsels, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order]. - The defendant No. 1, who suffered a decree along with defendant No. 2, is the appellant before this Court seeking to reverse the judgment and decree rendered by the Courts below, the present Second Appeal has been filed with the following substantial questions of law : A. What would be the responsibility of a carrier and when do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rier. J. Can a party be made liable for damages to a property not in its custody and that too when the property was handled by another party? 2. The first plaintiff during the course of their business, purchased second-hand textile imported machineries from Sweden to Chennai Port through the appellant/first defendant being the Sea Carrier. The Bill of Lading dated 19-8-1995 makes a specific mention about the payment being prepaid and clean on board. It also makes a mention that any transshipment on the part of the appellant/first defendant is not permissible. The appellant instead of discharging the cargo at Chennai Port, did the same at Mumbai Port. Thereafter, through the rails it was taken to the premises of defendant No. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dian Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925, it is submitted that the suit is barred by limitation. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiffs submits that it is the case of acting contrary as found in the bill of lading dated 19-8-1995. Thus, coupled with the evidence of DW1 and DW2 would clearly show that it is the responsibility of the appellant/first defendant and therefore, the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 and the Indian Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925, do not have any application. 6. Learned counsel for the second defendant would submit that they had duly complied with the decree amount. 7. A perusal of the Bill of Lading dated 19-8-1995 leaves no doubt that no transshipment is all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
