{"id":118387,"date":"2011-03-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mv-x-press-annapurana-anr-vs-gitanjali-woolens-pvt-ltd-ors-on-11-march-2011"},"modified":"2017-07-02T10:44:39","modified_gmt":"2017-07-02T05:14:39","slug":"mv-x-press-annapurana-anr-vs-gitanjali-woolens-pvt-ltd-ors-on-11-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mv-x-press-annapurana-anr-vs-gitanjali-woolens-pvt-ltd-ors-on-11-march-2011","title":{"rendered":"Mv.X.Press Annapurana & Anr vs Gitanjali Woolens Pvt.Ltd. & Ors on 11 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Mv.X.Press Annapurana & Anr vs Gitanjali Woolens Pvt.Ltd. & Ors on 11 March, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: D.K. Deshmukh, K. K. Tated<\/div>\n
           Kambli         1       App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005\n\n\n        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                 \n              ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION\n                                    ...\n<\/pre>\n
                      APPEAL NO.747 OF 2005<\/p>\n
                                    IN
\n                  ADMIRALTY SUIT NO.27 OF 1999
\n                                    …\n<\/p>\n
     MV.x.press annapurana & anr.       …Appellants<\/p>\n
           v\/s.\n<\/p>\n
     Gitanjali Woolens Pvt.ltd. & ors.  …Respondents<\/p>\n
                              WITH<\/p>\n
                      APPEAL NO.749 OF 2005
\n                     ig             IN
\n                  ADMIRALTY SUIT NO.27 OF 1999
\n                                    …\n<\/p>\n
     Meridian Shipping Agency Pvt.Ltd.  …Appellants
\n           v\/s.\n<\/p>\n
     Gitanjali Woolens Pvt.ltd. & ors.  …Respondents
\n                                    …\n<\/p>\n
                                  WITH<\/p>\n
                      APPEAL NO.750 OF 2005
\n                                    IN
\n                  ADMIRALTY SUIT NO.27 OF 1999
\n                                    …\n<\/p>\n
     Ignazio Messina & Co.                 ...Appellants\n           v\/s.\n     Gitanjali Woolens Pvt.ltd. & ors.     ...Respondents\n                                    ...\n<\/pre>\n
     Me.Rahul Narichania with Mr.Kunal Shah i\/b Bhatt &<\/p>\n
     Saldhana for Appellant in Appeal No.747\/05 (Original
\n     Defendants Nos.1 & 4)
\n     Mr.Ranjit Dharmadhikari i\/b Ratnakar Singh for Respondent
\n     No.2 in Appeal No.747\/05 & for Appellant in Appeal No.
\n     750\/05(Original Defendant No.2)
\n     Mr.Robin Jaisinghani i\/b IC Legal for Respondent No. 3 in<\/p>\n
                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:12 :::<\/span>
\n             Kambli               2        App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
     Appeal No.747\/05 and Appellant in Appeal No.749\/05(Original
\n     Defendant No.3)
\n     Mr.Pradip Sacheti with Mr.Ashwin Shankar i\/b P.S.Gidwani for<\/p>\n
     Respondent No.1 .(Original Plaintiff)<\/p>\n
                                     CORAM: D.K.Deshmukh &
\n                                            K.K.TATED, JJ<\/p>\n
                                     DATED: 11th March, 2011<\/p>\n
     JUDGMENT: (PER D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)<\/p>\n
     1.              All these three Appeals challenge the same order<\/p>\n
     passed by the learned single Judge of this Court. Therefore,<\/p>\n
     all these Appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a<\/p>\n
     common order.\n<\/p>\n
     2.              Admiralty Suit No.27 of 1999 was filed in March,<\/p>\n
     1999 by Gitanjali Woollens Pvt.Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as<\/p>\n
     the “Plaintiff”) claiming following reliefs:\n<\/p>\n
                     (a) That the vessel “X-Press Annapurna” of the
\n                     1st Defendant be contemned in the sum of US $
\n                     57,860.00 (United States Dollars Fifty Seven<\/p>\n
                     Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty only) together with
\n                     interest on the principal sum of US $ 51,374.10 at
\n                     the rate of 18% p.a. and\/0r at such other rate as
\n                     this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and for a further
\n                     sum of US $ 50,000.00 towards damages as per
\n                     particulars of claim at Exhibit `F’ to the Plaint;<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:12 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
           Kambli                3        App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   (b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant
\n                   Leave under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil<\/p>\n
                   Procedure, 1980;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   (c) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant
\n                   an order that the Plaintiff is entitled to exercise a
\n                   maritime lien on the 1st Defendants vessel along<\/p>\n
                   with the Hull, Engines, gears, tackles, bankers,
\n                   machinery apparel plant, furniture, appurtenances
\n                   and paraphernalia for the purpose of securing the
\n                   claim of the Plaintiffs in the suit;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   (d) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to order<\/p>\n
                   to issue a warrant for arrest of the Defendant No.
\n                   1’s vessel with orders for interim Sale to follow, if
\n                   necessary;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   (e) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to order
\n                   that the 1st Defendants vessels be arrested and\/or<\/p>\n
                   detained, by and under the orders and direction of
\n                   this Hon’ble Court; since there is no other asset of<\/p>\n
                   2nd defendant available to the Plaintiff in Italy, or
\n                   elsewhere and with no other assets;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   (f)   That by a mandatory order of injunction
\n                   restraining the Defendants from in any manner
\n                   whatsoever dealing with the 1st Defendants’ vessel
\n                   “X-Press Annapurna”, till the due and adequate<\/p>\n
                   security is furnished to the satisfaction of this
\n                   Hon’ble Court in the sum of the Plaintiffs’ claim in
\n                   the suit;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3.            It was claimed by the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff had<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:12 :::<\/span>
\n             Kambli               4       App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
     entrusted its cargo to Defendant No.3-Meridian Shipping<\/p>\n
     Agency Pvt.ltd., who was acting as an agent of Defendant No.<\/p>\n
     2-Ignazio Messina & Co. for being carried from a Port in India<\/p>\n
     to Assab Port, Ethiopia. According to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff<\/p>\n
     paid necessary charges for carraige of goods by sea to<\/p>\n
     Defendant No.3, but the Defendant No.3 despite the<\/p>\n
     demands made by the Plaintiff did not hand over the bills of<\/p>\n
     lading to the Plaintiff. With the result, the goods were lost and<\/p>\n
     the Plaintiff suffered loss. When the Plaintiff filed this suit, only<\/p>\n
     prayers to be found in the plaint are quoted above. There was<\/p>\n
     no prayer in the plaint claiming any relief or decree against<\/p>\n
     other Defendants, except the first Defendant-vessel. The<\/p>\n
     plaint was amended in January, 2004 and prayer clause (ai)<\/p>\n
     was introduced, which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
                     (ai) that this Hon’ble court be pleased to decree
\n                     and order the Defendants No.1 to 4 jointly and\/or
\n                     severally to pay to the Plaintiff a sum of US $
\n                     57,860.00 (United States Dollars Fifty Seven
\n                     Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty only) together with<\/p>\n
                     interest on the principal sum of US $ 51,374.10 at
\n                     the rate of 18% p.a. and\/or at such other rate as
\n                     this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and for a further
\n                     sum of US $ 50,000.00 towards damages as per
\n                     particulars of claim at Exhibit `F’ to the Plaint.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:12 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
             Kambli               5       App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     4.              The case of the Plaintiff in principal is that the<\/p>\n
     Plaintiff has maritime lien on first Defendant-vessel as the<\/p>\n
     Defendant No.3 who was acting as an agent of the Defendant<\/p>\n
     No.2 had wrongfully refused to issue bills of lading relating to<\/p>\n
     the carriage of the suit consignment. The case made out in<\/p>\n
     the plaint is that the suit consignment was entrusted to<\/p>\n
     Defendant No.3 acting as an agent of the Defendant No.2,<\/p>\n
     the consignment was loaded on Defendant No.1-vessel which<\/p>\n
     is owned by Defendant No.4 and despite the fact that the<\/p>\n
     freight for the said consignment was paid to Defendant No.3,<\/p>\n
     the Bills of lading was not handed over to the Plaintiff. With<\/p>\n
     the result, the Plaintiff could not realise export proceeds from<\/p>\n
     their buyers in Ethiopia.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     5.              The suit was contested by Defendants No.2, 3 & 4<\/p>\n
     by filing written statement. The principal defence of the<\/p>\n
     Defendants Nos. 1 & 4 was that there is no privity of contract<\/p>\n
     between the Defendants Nos. 1 & 4 on one hand and the<\/p>\n
     Plaintiff on the other hand. It was also claimed that suit in the<\/p>\n
     admiralty jurisdiction could not have been filed against the<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:12 :::<\/span>
\n             Kambli             6         App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
     Defendant No.1-vessel, when the Defendant No.1-vessel<\/p>\n
     admittedly is a vessel flying foreign flag and was not in Indian<\/p>\n
     water. The principal defence of the Defendant No.3 was that<\/p>\n
     there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the<\/p>\n
     Defendant No.3 that the Bills of Lading were to be delivered<\/p>\n
     to the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff clearing all the liabilities of the<\/p>\n
     Plaintiff as also its sister concern M\/s.Deepak woollen<\/p>\n
     Limited. This agreement was not abided by the Plaintiff and<\/p>\n
     therefore the delivery of the Bills of lading was not claimed by<\/p>\n
     the Plaintiff from the Defendant No.3 and therefore the<\/p>\n
     Defendant No.3 is not at all liable. It is also claimed by the<\/p>\n
     Defendant No.3 that the Defendant No.3 was admittedly<\/p>\n
     acting as an agent of the Defendant No.2 to the knowledge of<\/p>\n
     the Plaintiff, therefore, as the Defendant No.3 was agent of<\/p>\n
     the disclosed principal the suit was not maintainable against<\/p>\n
     the Defendant No.3. The Defendant No.3 also claimed that<\/p>\n
     the suit as against the Defendant No.3 was barred by the law<\/p>\n
     of limitation, as for the first time a prayer for decree against<\/p>\n
     Defendant No.3 was made in the year 2004. The second<\/p>\n
     Defendant also opposed the suit on the grounds similar to the<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:12 :::<\/span>
\n            Kambli               7        App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
     ones raised by Defendant No.3.\n<\/p>\n
     6.             On behalf of the Plaintiff two witnesses were<\/p>\n
     examined and on behalf of the third Defendant one witness<\/p>\n
     was examined. No oral evidence was led on behalf of the<\/p>\n
     Defendants No.1, 2 & 4. On the basis of the pleadings and<\/p>\n
     the documents following issues were framed.\n<\/p>\n
                                    ISSUES<\/p>\n
                    1.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to receive
\n                     a sum of US$ 57860 together with interest @
\n                     18% p.a. as per the particulars of claim<\/p>\n
                     shown in Exhibit E to the plaint?\n<\/p>\n
                    2. Whether the plaintiffs have become entitled to
\n                    receive a sum of US$ 50,000 as damages?\n<\/p>\n
                    3. Whether Defendant no. 1 and Defendant No.
\n                    4 prove that they are third parties to the suit
\n                    transaction and that there exists no privity<\/p>\n
                    of contract between the plaintiffs and the
\n                    Defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 4?<\/p>\n
\n\n\n                    4. Whether the Defendant no.     1 and Defendant\n\n\n\n\n\n                    no. 4       prove     that for the vessel to be\n<\/pre>\n
                    proceeded against in rem, a claim must just lie
\n                    against her owner in personam?\n<\/p>\n
                    5. Whether the defendant no.   1 and Defendant
\n                    no. 4      prove that the vessel was given on
\n                    charter to Bengal Xpress Container Lines Ltd.,<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:12 :::<\/span>
\n       Kambli               8        App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
               who had entered     into a further charter with
\n               Shreyas Shipping      Ltd., who in turn had a
\n               connecting  carrier agreement with the 2nd<\/p>\n
               Defendants?\n<\/p>\n
               6. Whether      the      plaintiffs prove that under
\n               the letter    of credit, shipment was required to
\n               be effected on or before 20th April 1998?\n<\/p>\n
               7. Whether the Defendant no.   1 and Defendant
\n               no. 4 prove that by reason of the         Mate
\n               receipt     dated 1st April 1998 having been
\n               issued by the    3rd Defendants, the plaintiffs<\/p>\n
               cause of action can only lie against the 3rd
\n               Defendants and\/or the 2nd Defendants?\n<\/p>\n
               8. Whether        the plaintiffs prove that it was
\n               the obligation        of the Defendants to issue to<\/p>\n
               the plaintiffs a Bills of Lading?\n<\/p>\n
               9. Whether the 2nd Defendants prove that the
\n               3rd defendants acted on their own and without<\/p>\n
               any prior consent, permission or instructions
\n               from      2nd Defendants      in the matter of<\/p>\n
               shipment of the cargo?\n<\/p>\n
               10. Whether the 2nd defendants prove that<\/p>\n
               the plaintiffs were in arrears for payment
\n               of   freight?\n<\/p>\n
               11. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the sum of
\n               Rs. 1,52,770\/- was paid in respect of freight<\/p>\n
               for the suit consignment?\n<\/p>\n
               12. Whether the 2nd Defendants prove that the
\n               3rd Defendants acted on their own accord and
\n               their acts\/omissions were not binding upon
\n               the second defendants?\n<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:12 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
       Kambli                9        App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
               13. Whether the 2nd Defendants prove that
\n               the third Defendants on their own adopted ways
\n               and means for recovery of the arrears?\n<\/p>\n
               14. Whether this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to<\/p>\n
               try the suit?\n<\/p>\n
               15. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n               16. Whether     the plaintiff discloses any cause\n               of    action   against     the 3rd Defendants\n               when        admittedly   the 3rd defendants were\n               acting as        agents of a disclosed principal.\n\n\n\n\n                                \n<\/pre>\n
               17. Whether the plaintiff proves that the
\n               plaintiff paid the freight in respect of
\n                    ig                                  the
\n               suit consignment to the 3rd defendants?\n<\/p>\n
               18. Whether the plaintiff proves that the 3rd<\/p>\n
               Defendants have contravened the provisions of
\n               the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act or the Bills
\n               of Lading Act as alleged in paragraph 9 of the
\n               Plaint?<\/p>\n
\n      \n\n\n               19. Whether      the  Plaintiff proves that     the\n   \n\n\n\n               3rd        Defendants in any manner acted in\n               collusion with Defendant nos.         1 and 2 or\n               committed acts of     malafide,     malfeasance,\n\n\n\n\n\n               non-feasance or       tortious    acts resulting in\n               conversion of     the suit consignments to their\n<\/pre>\n
               benefit and loss to   the Plaintiff as alleged in
\n               paragraphs 9 and 11 of the plaint.\n<\/p>\n
               20. Whether  the    Plaintiff proves that  the
\n               3rd Defendants are in any manner liable to pay
\n               any amounts as claimed in the suit?\n<\/p>\n
               21. Whether the 3rd Defendants prove that the
\n               suit consignment    were accepted and carried
\n               on the basis      of the understanding set<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:12 :::<\/span>
\n              Kambli              10       App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
                      out in     paragraphs 4 to 7 of the written
\n                      statement?\n<\/p>\n
                      22. Whether the 3rd Defendants prove that
\n                      they were acting within authority as agents of<\/p>\n
                      the 2nd Defendants.\n<\/p>\n
                      23. Whether   the 3rd defendants prove their
\n                      claim    in the    counter claim    filed by<\/p>\n
                      the 3rd Defendants.\n<\/p>\n
                      24. What orders?\n<\/p>\n
     7.               The learned single Judge decided the suit by his<\/p>\n
     judgment dated 9th August, 2005. The learned single Judge<\/p>\n
     decreed the suit in terms of prayer clauses (ai) and (c). He<\/p>\n
     held that the Plaintiff is entitled to recover all the claims as<\/p>\n
     decreed by him by enforcing the security furnished pursuant<\/p>\n
     to the interim order dated 19-4-1999 to the Prothonotary &<\/p>\n
     Sr.Master of this Court. He also saddled costs on Defendant<\/p>\n
     No.3.\n<\/p>\n
     8.               These three Appeals have been filed challenging<\/p>\n
     that judgment by the Defendants. Appeal No.747 of 2005 is<\/p>\n
     filed by Defendants Nos. 1 & 4, Appeal No.749 of 2005 is filed<\/p>\n
     by Defendant No.3 and Appeal No.750 of 2005 is filed by<\/p>\n
     Defendant No.2. We have heard the learned Counsel<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:12 :::<\/span>
\n              Kambli              11       App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
     appearing for the parties in detail. We have also perused the<\/p>\n
     record carefully.\n<\/p>\n
     9.               From the perusal of the record and hearing of the<\/p>\n
     submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
     parties, we find that the very basis of the Plaintiff’s claim<\/p>\n
     against the Defendants is that the Plaintiff demanded the<\/p>\n
     delivery of the Bills of lading from the Defendant No.3, but it<\/p>\n
     was not given, therefore the buyer of the goods could not take<\/p>\n
     delivery of the goods, as a result the Plaintiff suffered loss.\n<\/p>\n
     For the purpose of deciding this controversy we can take<\/p>\n
     following as admitted or established position.\n<\/p>\n
          (i) The Plaintiff entrusted his corgo to the Defendant No.3,<\/p>\n
            who to the knowledge of the Plaintiff was working as<\/p>\n
            agent of the Defendant No.2<\/p>\n
          (ii) that cargo was loaded on the Defendant No.1-vessel.\n<\/p>\n
          (iii)The Defendant No.1-vessel carried the cargo to the<\/p>\n
            Port of destination and discharged it there.\n<\/p>\n
          (iv)The letter of credit that was opened by the buyer of the<\/p>\n
            cargo in favour of the Plaintiff with Bank of Ethopia was<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:12 :::<\/span>
\n            Kambli              12        App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
           admittedly valid till 5th August, 1998.\n<\/p>\n
        (v) On the date on which the suit was filed in March, 1999,<\/p>\n
           the Defendant No.1-vessel was not within the maritime<\/p>\n
           jurisdiction of this court.\n<\/p>\n
        (vi) Till the amendment in the plaint was granted by the<\/p>\n
           order made by the Division Bench of this Court in the<\/p>\n
           year 2004, there was no decree claimed by the Plaintiff<\/p>\n
           against the Defendants Nos. 2 & 3.\n<\/p>\n
     10.            There are three points of fact which are hotly<\/p>\n
     disputed (i) According to the Plaintiff, it demanded from the<\/p>\n
     Defendant No.3 the Bills of Lading , but the Defendant No.3<\/p>\n
     did not hand over the Bills of Lading to the Plaintiff. As a<\/p>\n
     result of which, according to the Plaintiff, the buyer could not<\/p>\n
     take delivery of the goods and the Plaintiff suffered loss. (ii)<\/p>\n
     According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant No.3 demanded from<\/p>\n
     the Plaintiff the carriage charges of the cargo in question and<\/p>\n
     the previous Bill of the Plaintiff that was due to the Defendant<\/p>\n
     No.3 and the Plaintiff paid those charges. iii)         According to<\/p>\n
     the Defendant No.3, the Plaintiff had agreed to pay to the<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:12 :::<\/span>
\n            Kambli               13        App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
     Defendant No.3 the carriage charges of the cargo in question<\/p>\n
     as well as the previous balance dues of the Plaintiff as well as<\/p>\n
     its sister concern M\/s.Deepak Woollen Ltd. , but the Plaintiff<\/p>\n
     though promised did not clear these dues. The Plaintiff did not<\/p>\n
     also ask for delivery of the Bills of Lading because of its<\/p>\n
     failure to pay the charges as agreed and therefore, the<\/p>\n
     Plaintiff has no cause of action against the Defendants.\n<\/p>\n
     11.            In<\/p>\n
                         our   opinion,   following    points       arise       for<\/p>\n
     consideration:\n<\/p>\n
        (i) Whether the Plaintiff demanded the Bills of Lading from<\/p>\n
           the Defendant No.3, after the cargo reached its<\/p>\n
           destination (For deciding this question, the question<\/p>\n
           whether on behalf of the Plaintiff any assurance was<\/p>\n
           given to the Defendant No.3 to clear all the dues of the<\/p>\n
           Plaintiff as well as its sister concern M\/s.Deepak Wollen<\/p>\n
           Ltd. will have to be decided.)<\/p>\n
        (ii) Whether the claim made against Defendants Nos. 2 & 3<\/p>\n
           by amendment in the year 2004 was within the period of<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:12 :::<\/span>
\n         Kambli            14         App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
        limitation and therefore could not be decreed.\n<\/p>\n
     (iii)Whether in the absence of any particulars given either<\/p>\n
        in the plaint or in the oral evidence of the claim for<\/p>\n
        damages, the learned Judge was justified in passing a<\/p>\n
        decree for payment of damages)<\/p>\n
     (iv)As admittedly on the date on which the plaint was<\/p>\n
        presented in this court, the Defendant No.1 vessel was<\/p>\n
        not within the maritime jurisdiction of this court. The suit<\/p>\n
        was not maintainable. (For deciding this point, we will<\/p>\n
        have to consider the question whether the defect in<\/p>\n
        filling the suit in the Admiralty Jurisdiction, when the<\/p>\n
        Defendant No.1-Vessel which is a foreign vessel was<\/p>\n
        not within the Admiralty Jurisdiction of this Court, can be<\/p>\n
        cured by the vessel entering the maritime jurisdiction of<\/p>\n
        this court at a subsequent date.)<\/p>\n
     (v) Whether, a suit in the Admiralty jurisdiction of this court<\/p>\n
        against the Defendant No.4 was maintainable, without<\/p>\n
        the Plaintif having any privity of contract with the<\/p>\n
        Defendant No.4.\n<\/p>\n
     (vi)As admittedly the third Defendant was agent of the<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:12 :::<\/span>
\n             Kambli               15         App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
           disclosed principal namely the Defendant No.2, the suit<\/p>\n
           was maintainable for a decree against the third<\/p>\n
           Defendant.\n<\/p>\n
     12.             Of these points, if the first point is decided against<\/p>\n
     the Plaintiff the entire suit has to be dismissed, because the<\/p>\n
     entire cause of action of the Plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint is<\/p>\n
     based on the alleged non-delivery of the Bills of Lading by the<\/p>\n
     third Defendant to the Plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
     13.             So far as the first point is concerned, averments<\/p>\n
     in paragraph 7 of the plaint are relevant. It reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                            “7.        The clearing agent on behalf of
\n                     the plaintiffs, accordingly, approached the third
\n                     defendants for exchange and release of the Bills<\/p>\n
                     of Lading covering the shipment of the two
\n                     containers per the first defendant vessel. Two
\n                     bankers’ cheques for Rs.4,53,560 being the
\n                     outstanding freight in respect of earlier bills of
\n                     lading which were issued by the third defendants<\/p>\n
                     in respect of earlier shipments and which freight
\n                     was payable on credit in terms and arrangement
\n                     between the plaintiffs and the third defendants and
\n                     Rs.1,52,700 being the freight that was payable in
\n                     respect of the shipment that was effected per the
\n                     first defendant vessel in respect of the two subject
\n                     suit containers as stated     above for carraige of<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:12 :::<\/span>
\n             Kambli                16        App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
                     the containers from Port Bombay to Assab Port.
\n                     The said agents handed over to the third
\n                     defendants the said two Banker’s cheques as also<\/p>\n
                     the mate receipt which was issued by the first
\n                     defendant vessel in respect of the said two<\/p>\n
                     containers. The plaintiffs crave leaves to refer to
\n                     and rely upon their letter dated 13th April 1998
\n                     addressed to the third defendants recording the
\n                     payment of the said two Banker’s cheques and<\/p>\n
                     requesting for issue of the Bills of Lading, when
\n                     produced. The third defendants refused to issue
\n                     the bills of lading in respect of the said two
\n                     containers on the ground that there was some
\n                     outstanding due and payable. This was based on<\/p>\n
                     no prior warning, and it involved two completely
\n                     separate transactions. Therefore, the plaintiffs<\/p>\n
                     approached the third defendants on several
\n                     occasions because, in the absence of the bills of
\n                     lading, there was no possibility for the plaintiffs to<\/p>\n
                     fulfill with the terms contained in the letter of credit
\n                     and consequently, the plaintiffs would not be in a
\n                     position to realise the value of the consignments.
\n                     The third defendants were accordingly addressed<\/p>\n
                     in the matter by the plaintiffs through
\n                     correspondence. “(emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     14.             Thus, according to the Plaintiff, delivery of the Bills<\/p>\n
     of Lading was sought by the clearing agent of the Plaintiff,<\/p>\n
     payment of the carriage charges was made, but the third<\/p>\n
     Defendant did not deliver the Bills of Lading. The Plaintiff<\/p>\n
     relies on a letter dated 13th April, 1998 in paragraph 7 to claim<\/p>\n
     that the delivery of the Bills of Lading was sought. The Plaintiff<\/p>\n
     also refers to other correspondence between the Plaintiff and<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:12 :::<\/span>
\n               Kambli               17        App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
     the Defendant on this question. In paragraph 8, the Plaintiff<\/p>\n
     states thus:\n<\/p>\n
                              “8.         Accordingly, by a notice dated<\/p>\n
                         th
\n                       24 July 1998, a demand was made upon the
\n                       third defendants since by then, the validity of the
\n                       letter of credit had expired and the whereabouts of
\n                       the goods were also not known although the first<\/p>\n
                       defendant vessel had carried the goods but had
\n                       not fulfilled has obligations by issuing the relevant
\n                       bills of lading as required having assumed the
\n                       responsibility        of    the      contract      of
\n                       affreightment……….”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     15.               Thus, according to the Plaintiff, on 24th July, 1998,<\/p>\n
     the Plaintiff claimed damages, obviously therefore the Plaintiff<\/p>\n
     gave up the demand for delivery of the Bills of Lading on or<\/p>\n
     before that date.\n<\/p>\n
     16.               So far as oral evidence on this point is concerned,<\/p>\n
     there is only one witness examined on behalf of the Plaintiff<\/p>\n
     namely Mr.Surendra Goel. What is stated in paragraphs 8, 9<\/p>\n
     & 10 of the examination-in-chief is relevant.                 It reads as<\/p>\n
     under:\n<\/p>\n
                         8. I state that the Plaintiffs thereafter attempted
\n                            to procure from the Third Defendants, Bills
\n                            of Lading, on the basis of the Mate Receipt,<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:12 :::<\/span>
\n       Kambli           18        App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
                 which Bills of Lading were to be forwarded to
\n                 Asfeha, alongwith the documentation
\n                 elucidated in paragraph 6 of this Affidavit. II<\/p>\n
                 state that when the Plaintiffs approached the
\n                 Third Defendants, they were informed that<\/p>\n
                 there was outstanding freight due and
\n                 payable, in respect of consignments
\n                 previously shipped by the Plaintiffs through
\n                 the Third Defendants and consequently the<\/p>\n
                 Third Defendants would not issue the Bills of
\n                 Lading until these outstandings were settled.
\n                 Vide a facsimile transmission, dated 1st April
\n                 1998, addressed to the Plaintiffs, the Third
\n                 Defendants quantified these outstanding<\/p>\n
                 sums at Rs.4,63,560. By a subsequent
\n                 facsimile correspondence, dated 8th April<\/p>\n
                 1998, the Third Defendants informed the
\n                 Plaintiffs that Freight amounting to Rs.
\n                 1,52,770.00 was payable in respect of the<\/p>\n
                 present consignment shipped on board the
\n                 First Defendant Vessel, for carriage to port
\n                 Assab, Ethopia. I state that in accordance
\n                 with the amounts quantified in these<\/p>\n
                 facsimile intimations, the Plaintiffs issued
\n                 two bankers cheques, both dated 13th April<\/p>\n
                 1998, bearing numbers 055975 and 055974
\n                 in the sums of Rs.4,63,560\/- and Rs.
\n                 1,52,770\/- respectively. These cheques<\/p>\n
                 were, under cover of a letter bearing number
\n                 GWPL\/98-99\/13 dated 13th April, 1998,
\n                 addressed by the Plaintiffs to the Third
\n                 Defendants, handed over to Jupiter, who
\n                 was entrusted with the task of forwarding<\/p>\n
                 these cheques to the Third Defendants and
\n                 obtaining the Bills of Lading in accordance
\n                 with the Mate Receipt.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               9. I state that Jupiter forwarded the Bankers
\n                 cheques, together with the Plaintiffs’<\/p>\n
                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:12 :::<\/span>
\n            Kambli               19        App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
                         covering letter to the Third Defendants, who
\n                         accepted these cheques without any
\n                         qualification and assured Jupiter that they<\/p>\n
                         would issue the Bills of Lading expeditiously.
\n                         Moreover, the Third Defendants deposited<\/p>\n
                         these cheques and realised amounts under
\n                         them, which realisation has been certified by
\n                         the issuing Bank, vide a certificate dated 6th
\n                         August, 1998.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      10. I state that even after payment was made
\n                         to them by the Plaintiffs, in accordance with
\n                         their own quantification and inspite of being<\/p>\n
                         repeatedly called upon to do so by Jupiter,
\n                         the Third Defendants refused to issue the<\/p>\n
                         Bills of Lading on the pretext that there were
\n                         amounts still outstanding and due to them
\n                         from Deepak Wollen Ltd. This alleged<\/p>\n
                         outstanding was clearly not of the Plaintiff’s
\n                         company. I state that prior to this time, the
\n                         Third Defendants had never claimed any
\n                         amounts, other than the amounts reflected in<\/p>\n
                         the facsimile transmissions dated 1st April
\n                         and 8th April 1998, as being due and payable<\/p>\n
                         to them by the Plaintiffs. The events which
\n                         transpired between Jupiter and the Third
\n                         Defendants, culminating in the refusal on the<\/p>\n
                         part of the Third Defendants to issue the
\n                         Bills of Lading, citing patently false and
\n                         untenable reasons, were recorded in a
\n                         correspondence dated 5th October, 1998,
\n                         bearing        number       JSA\/GEN\/98\/6523<\/p>\n
                         addressed by Jupiter to the Plaintiffs.
\n                         (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     17.            According to the Plaintiff’s witness, thus, the third<\/p>\n
     Defendant demanded from the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:12 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
            Kambli            20        App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005\n\n     4,63,560\/- and Rs.1,52,770\/-      as the amount of carriage\n\n<\/pre>\n
     charges for the consignment in question and previous<\/p>\n
     transaction. According to the Plaintiff, both these amounts<\/p>\n
     were paid on 13th April, 1998 by cheques. But still the third<\/p>\n
     Defendant did hand over the Bills of Lading on the ground<\/p>\n
     that the amounts payable to the third Defendant by<\/p>\n
     M\/s.Deepak wollen Ltd. has not been paid. What is pertinent<\/p>\n
     to be noted is that though in the plaint reference is made to<\/p>\n
     other correspondence for claiming that delivery of Bills of<\/p>\n
     Lading was sought from the third Defendant, in the<\/p>\n
     examination in chief there is no reference to any such<\/p>\n
     correspondence. According to the plaintiff’s witness the Bills<\/p>\n
     of Lading was demanded by jupiter repeatedly. Therefore, it<\/p>\n
     was necessary for the plaintiff either to produce any<\/p>\n
     communication from jupiter to the 3rd Defendant demanding<\/p>\n
     the delivery of the Bills of Lading or to examine a witness<\/p>\n
     from jupiter to prove that repeatedly delivery of Bills of Lading<\/p>\n
     was demanded by somebody from Jupiter. It is to be noted<\/p>\n
     that Jupiter was admittedly the agent appointed by the<\/p>\n
     Plaintiff. So far as the judgment is concerned, following<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:13 :::<\/span>
\n            Kambli                21        App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
     portion from paragraphs 34 & 35 is relevant:\n<\/p>\n
                    34……. The learned counsel has further contended<\/p>\n
                    by relying upon the judgment of the Privy Council
\n                    in the case of Canada and Dominion Sugar<\/p>\n
                    Company Limited and Canddian National (West
\n                    Indies) Steamships Limited reported in 1947 Privy
\n                    Council page 46 that in the present case there is
\n                    no liability of the 3rd defendant to issue the Bills of<\/p>\n
                    Lading because the plaintiff has not demanded for
\n                    the same. This contention is required to be
\n                    rejected because the evidence in the present case
\n                    indicate that the plaintiff has by a letter dated
\n                    23.6.1998 Exhibit P-22 and in para. I therefore<\/p>\n
                    have expressly stated as under:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                          “we have been regularly following up with
\n                          you to issue us the B\/L and you are<\/p>\n
                          withholding the same for no valid reasons.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
               35.There is no cross-examination whatsoever in<\/p>\n
               respect of the aforesaid statement contained in
\n               the said letter dated 23-6-1998. The said evidence<\/p>\n
               forms part of the record. In view thereof, it is not
\n               possible to hold that the plaintiff did not demand
\n               the Bills of Lading and, therefore, the defendant<\/p>\n
           No. 1 was absolved from the liability of issuing one.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     18.            The learned Judge has thus relied on statement in<\/p>\n
     letter dated 23-6-1998 Exh.P-22 and absence of cross-\n<\/p>\n
     examination of the Plaintiff’s witness on this point. Now, so far<\/p>\n
     as the plaint is concerned, so far as the demand of Bills of<\/p>\n
     Lading is concerned, the letter dated 23-6-1998 is not relied<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:13 :::<\/span>
\n            Kambli               22        App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
     on or even referred to. So far as examination in chief is<\/p>\n
     concerned, the letter dated 23-6-1998 is referred to<\/p>\n
     paragraph 12. It reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                    “12.         I state that a communication dated 23rd<\/p>\n
                    June, 1998 was addressed by the Plaintiffs to the
\n                    Third Defendants, wherein the Plaintiffs recorded
\n                    the illegal, untenable and malafide actions of the
\n                    Third Defendants, which resulted in loss being
\n                    occasioned to the Plaintiff. Consequently, the<\/p>\n
                    Third Defendants were called upon to pay to the
\n                    Plaintiffs, a sum of US$ 45,065.40, equivalent to<\/p>\n
                    INR 19,25,193 (@ US1= INR 42.75), being the
\n                    FOB value of the consignment which was lost on
\n                    account of breaches committed by the<\/p>\n
                    Defendants. Vide the same communication, the
\n                    Plaintiffs demanded further sums of Rs.2,65,707,
\n                    being the duty drawback which the Plaintiffs would
\n                    have enjoyed on the export and Rs.75,631.00<\/p>\n
                    towards interest.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     19.            Though the learned Judge has observed that the<\/p>\n
     paragraph in the letter which says that the Bills of Lading was<\/p>\n
     demanded repeatedly, there is no cross-examination, perusal<\/p>\n
     of the cross-examination of the only witness of the Plaintiff<\/p>\n
     shows that this witness has been specifically cross-examined<\/p>\n
     on this letter. That reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:13 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
       Kambli               23         App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005\n\n               (Shown Exhibit P-22)\n\n<\/pre>\n
               Q) Is it correct that by this letter, you repudiated<\/p>\n
               the contract, which the Plaintiffs entered with
\n               Defendants No.3 as the Agents of Defendants No.<\/p>\n
               2?\n<\/p>\n
               A)   No, it is not correct.\n<\/p>\n
               Q) Have you demanded the release of the Bills
\n               of Lading by this letter?\n<\/p>\n
               A) I have not in particular demanded the release<\/p>\n
               of the Bills of Lading by this letter.\n<\/p>\n
               62,Q) In your answer given sometime back, you
\n               have stated that the buyers gave extension of<\/p>\n
               Letter of Credit as and when the Plaintifs
\n               requested. Is your said answer not contradictory to
\n               what is stated in paragraph 3 of this letter (dated
\n               23rd June 1998 (Exhibit P-22)?\n<\/p>\n
               A)    There is no contradiction as I have already
\n               stated that this was a pre-warning letter.\n<\/p>\n
               Q) Therefore, what you stated in your letter
\n               dated 23rd June 1998 (Exhibit P-22) was a
\n               deliberate falsehood?\n<\/p>\n
               A)    I will not claim it as a falsehood, because I<\/p>\n
               had to convey the message of warning that if
\n               Defendants No.3 still do not release the Bills of
\n               Lading, they may face the liability for the costs of
\n               goods and any further extension of Letter of Credit
\n               was between Plaintiffs and the consignee.\n<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:13 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
            Kambli               24       App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
                    Q) Would you atleast agree that what you stated in
\n                    this letter regarding the buyers refusal to extend
\n                    the Letter of Credit was not a correct statement?\n<\/p>\n
                    A) According to me, it was a correct statement.\n<\/p>\n
     20.            It is clear from the above quoted deposition of the<\/p>\n
     Plaintiff’s only witness that even according that witness by<\/p>\n
     letter dated 23-6-1998 the release of the Bills of Lading was<\/p>\n
     not demanded. It is clear from the record that so far as a<\/p>\n
     letter dated 13th April, 1998 is concerned, the Plaintiff has not<\/p>\n
     been able to prove that that letter was delivered by the<\/p>\n
     Plaintiff to the third Defendant. According to the Plaintiff<\/p>\n
     himself by letter dated 23rd June, 1998 at Exh.P-22 the<\/p>\n
     release of the Bills of Lading was not demanded. Thus, there<\/p>\n
     is no document on record placed by the Plaintiff showing that<\/p>\n
     delivery of the Bills of Lading was demanded from the third<\/p>\n
     Defendant by the Plaintiff at any point of time after the vessel<\/p>\n
     left the port. On record the plaintiff has also not placed any<\/p>\n
     oral evidence by examining a witness who orally demanded<\/p>\n
     the delivery of bill of lading from defendant no.3. Thus, it can<\/p>\n
     be said that there is no evidence on record either<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:13 :::<\/span>
\n             Kambli            25         App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
     documentary or oral to prove that on behalf of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
     delivery of bill of lading was demanded from defendant no.3.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 2 of the Indian Carriage of Goods By Sea Act,1925<\/p>\n
     reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                        “2.   Subject to the provisions of this Act,<\/p>\n
                        the   rules   set    out    in    the      Schedule<\/p>\n
                        (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) shall<\/p>\n
                        have effect in relation to and in connection
\n                      igwith the carriage of goods by sea in ships<\/p>\n
                        carrying goods from any port in India to any<\/p>\n
                        other port whether in or outside India.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Perusal of the Schedule shows that sub-Article (3) of Article III<\/p>\n
     casts duty on a shipper to demand a bill of lading. The<\/p>\n
     relevant portion of Article III(3) reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                        “After receiving the goods into his charge,<\/p>\n
                        the carrier or the master or agent of the<\/p>\n
                        carrier, shall, on demand of the shipper<\/p>\n
                        issue to the shipper a bill of lading.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In the present case, the plaintiff was the shipper and<\/p>\n
     defendant no.3 could be described as agent of the carrier.\n<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:13 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
             Kambli            26         App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
     Therefore, defendant no.3 was under a statutory duty to<\/p>\n
     deliver to the plaintiff a bill of lading on demand being made.\n<\/p>\n
     In other words, there was no duty cast on defendant no.3 to<\/p>\n
     deliver bill of lading to the plaintiff without the plaintiff<\/p>\n
     demanding the bill of lading. In this regard, the case of the<\/p>\n
     third defendant is that the plaintiff did not demand delivery of<\/p>\n
     bill of lading because there was an agreement between the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff and defendant no.3 that the defendant no.3 would<\/p>\n
     deliver the bill of landing to the plaintiff only after the dues not<\/p>\n
     only of the plaintiff, but of the sister concern viz. Deepak<\/p>\n
     Woolens Ltd. will also be cleared and the dues of Deepak<\/p>\n
     Woolens Ltd. were not cleared. According to the plaintiff,<\/p>\n
     when the third defendant agreed to accept the shipment it<\/p>\n
     was the condition put by them that the plaintiff will have to<\/p>\n
     clear all the dues of the plaintiff and all the dues of its sister<\/p>\n
     concerns before demanding the bill of lading. According to the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff, the negotiations for carriage of the consignment in<\/p>\n
     question was carried out not by Mr.Surendra Goel- the<\/p>\n
     witness examined by the plaintiff, but by Mr.Deepak Goel. The<\/p>\n
     following portion from the cross-examination of Mr.Surendra<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:13 :::<\/span>
\n            Kambli            27        App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
     Goel is relevant. It reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                       “Q.   Who was the person who entered into<\/p>\n
                       negotiations on behalf of the plaintiffs which<\/p>\n
                       resulted into an agreement between the<\/p>\n
                       plaintiffs and third defendant referred to in<\/p>\n
                       this paragraph ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                       A.    On    behalf    of    the     plaintiffs       the
\n                     ignegotiations were conducted by Mr.Deepak<\/p>\n
                       Goel and on behalf of third defendants,<\/p>\n
                       negotiations were conducted by Mr.Ketan<\/p>\n
                       Dholakia.     There    is    no memorandum<\/p>\n
                       pertaining to this agreement. It was an oral<\/p>\n
                       agreement. Mr.Deepak Goel is still available<\/p>\n
                       and he is working under me.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Thus, according to the plaintiff, though the negotiations were<\/p>\n
     conducted on behalf of plaintiff by Deepak Goel, he has not<\/p>\n
     been examined as witness. The following portion from the<\/p>\n
     deposition of the witness for the plaintiff – Mr.Surendra Goel<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:13 :::<\/span>
\n             Kambli               28         App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
     is also relevant:-\n<\/p>\n
                          “Q.    Is it correct that Mr.Deepak Goel,<\/p>\n
                          Mrs.Lobo and Mr.Pandey were looking after<\/p>\n
                          export shipments of the Plaintiffs?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                          A.     Yes. It is correct.\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n                          Q.     Is it also correct that for this suit\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n                          shipment, it was Mr.Deepak Goel and\n<\/pre>\n
                      ig  Mrs.Lobo who first approached Defendants<\/p>\n
                          no.3 ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                          A.     I do not remember who approached<\/p>\n
                          Defendants No.3, but Defendants No.3 used<\/p>\n
                          to come to the office regularly. Who spoke to<\/p>\n
                          them     and   what     happened,          I   do      not<\/p>\n
                          remember.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                          47.    (Attention of the witness is drawn to<\/p>\n
                          paragraph 5 of his Affidavit of Evidence and<\/p>\n
                          his answer to the question in paragraph 12<\/p>\n
                          of    his   deposition       recorded          on     25th<\/p>\n
                          November,2002)<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:13 :::<\/span>
\n       Kambli           29        App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
               Q.      After reading paragraph 12 of your<\/p>\n
               deposition and paragraph 5 of your Affidavit<\/p>\n
               of Evidence, do you agree that it was<\/p>\n
               Mr.Deepak      Goel    who     had      approached<\/p>\n
               Defendants No.3 for the shipment of the<\/p>\n
               goods, which form subject matter of the<\/p>\n
               suit?\n<\/p>\n
               A.      I do not know whether Mr.Deepak<\/p>\n
               Goel or other staff members approached<\/p>\n
               Defendants No.3 for the suit shipment.\n<\/p>\n
               Q.      Is it true that the Agreement referred to<\/p>\n
               in paragraph 5 of your Affidavit in Evidence<\/p>\n
               is the same Agreement, which is referred to<\/p>\n
               by you in paragraph 4 of your said Affidavit<\/p>\n
               of Evidence ?\n<\/p>\n
               A.      Yes. It is the same agreement.\n\n\n\n\n\n               Q.      After reading paragraphs 4 and 5 of\n\n<\/pre>\n
               your Affidavit of Evidence and the answer<\/p>\n
                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:13 :::<\/span>
\n       Kambli         30          App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
               given by you to the previous question in<\/p>\n
               paragraph 12 of your deposition recorded on<\/p>\n
               25th November 2002, do you now agree that<\/p>\n
               it was Mr.Deepak Goel who first approached<\/p>\n
               Defendants No.3 for the suit shipment?\n<\/p>\n
               A.   I     have     already        answered            that<\/p>\n
               Mr.Deepak Goel negotiated for the total<\/p>\n
               transaction including the suit shipment.\n<\/p>\n
               (Witness clarifies that there used to be no<\/p>\n
               negotiations for individual shipments. Once<\/p>\n
               the negotiation is done, the lower staff was<\/p>\n
               to carry on with the instructions given to<\/p>\n
               them by Mr.Deepak Goel.)<\/p>\n
               Q.   Is it correct that before undertaking the<\/p>\n
               suit shipment Defendants No.3 insisted that<\/p>\n
               both the Plaintiffs and Deepak Woolens Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
               should clear their outstanding dues?\n<\/p>\n
               A.   It is not correct.\n<\/p>\n
               Q.   Did Defendants No.3 at least insist on<\/p>\n
                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:13 :::<\/span>
\n            Kambli            31        App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
                      the plaintiffs clearing its outstanding dues<\/p>\n
                      before undertaking the suit shipment?\n<\/p>\n
                      A.    No. it is not correct.\n<\/p>\n
     In the deposition of Mr.Surendra Goel there is a mention that<\/p>\n
     when delivery of bill of lading was demanded, respondent no.\n<\/p>\n
     3 refused to issue bill of lading “on the pretext that there was<\/p>\n
     an amount still outstanding and due to them from Deepak<\/p>\n
     Woolens Ltd.”\n<\/p>\n
                      So far as the evidence led on behalf of<\/p>\n
     defendant no.3 is concerned, it was their case that the<\/p>\n
     agreement for carriage of the suit consignment was with<\/p>\n
     Mr.Surendra Goel and it was clearly agreed that the dues of<\/p>\n
     the plaintiff as also Deepak Woolens Ltd. would be cleared<\/p>\n
     before bill of lading is demanded. So far as the relationship<\/p>\n
     between the plaintiff and Deepak Woolens Ltd. is concerned,<\/p>\n
     Mr.Deepak Goel after whom that concern is named is<\/p>\n
     admittedly the son of Mr.Surendra Goel. It is clear from the<\/p>\n
     cross examination of Mr.Surendra Goel that the plaintiff and<\/p>\n
     Deepak Woolens Ltd. are controlled by the members of the<\/p>\n
     family of Mr.Surendra Goel. Both the companies have their<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:13 :::<\/span>
\n            Kambli              32       App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
     registered office at same place i.e. 1-B, Court Chambers, 35,<\/p>\n
     New Marine Lines, Mumbai. It has also come on record that<\/p>\n
     apart from having common shareholders and the registered<\/p>\n
     office at the same place, even the stationary used by Deepak<\/p>\n
     Woolens Ltd. and the plaintiff is common. Thus, on record<\/p>\n
     there is enough material available to indicate that there was<\/p>\n
     an agreement between the parties for the plaintiff to clear the<\/p>\n
     dues of Deepak Woolens Ltd. also before it claims delivery of<\/p>\n
     bill of lading, and because the plaintiff did not clear the dues<\/p>\n
     of Deepak Woolens Ltd. the delivery of bill of lading was not<\/p>\n
     demanded.\n<\/p>\n
     21.            The witness of the Plaintiff has stated that the<\/p>\n
     Plaintiff asked for damages and did not ask for delivery of<\/p>\n
     Bills of Lading by letter dated 23-6-1998. The reason that was<\/p>\n
     given by the Plaintiff for demanding the amount of loss<\/p>\n
     suffered by the Plaintiff from 23-6-1998 onwards was that the<\/p>\n
     letter of credit had come to an end. The letter at Exh.P-23 i.e.<\/p>\n
     letter dated 24th July, 1998 addressed by an advocate for the<\/p>\n
     Plaintiff to the Defendant No.3 was pointed out to the witness<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:13 :::<\/span>
\n               Kambli              33        App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
     of the Plaintiff Mr.Surendra Goel and he was asked,<\/p>\n
            Q. By this letter, you again did not demand release of<\/p>\n
                   the Bills of Lading citing the reasons that the period<\/p>\n
                   of validity of the Letter of Credit had expired?\n<\/p>\n
            A. Yet, it is correct.\n<\/p>\n
     In the letter dated 24th July, 1998 at Exh.P-23 the Plaintiff has<\/p>\n
     stated<\/p>\n
            “As a result of your shipping agent’s entirely illegal<\/p>\n
     retention of the bills of lading pertaining to this consignment,<\/p>\n
     the period of validity of the letter of credit issued by the<\/p>\n
     foreign buyer to my client has expired and the export<\/p>\n
     proceeds can no longer be realised with certainty by my<\/p>\n
     client. ”\n<\/p>\n
     This witness, therefore, was asked after showing him the<\/p>\n
     letter at Exh.P-33 i.e. the letter dated 14th July, 1998<\/p>\n
     addressed by HDFC Bank Ltd.,<\/p>\n
            Q.Do you agree that by this letter, the validity of the<\/p>\n
                 Letter of Credit was extended upto 5th August, 1998?\n<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:13 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
            Kambli                 34          App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
           A. Yet, it was extended upto 5th August 1998, but with<\/p>\n
              amendments other than the extension of the date.\n<\/p>\n
     22.            On   behalf    of   the     Defendant        No.3       Mr.Anil<\/p>\n
     Madhavan, Senior Manager was examined as a witness. In<\/p>\n
     paragraph 3 of his examination-in-chief he states that<\/p>\n
     Mr.Deepak Goel and Mrs.Lobo hd approached him to accept<\/p>\n
     the consignment, but he refused to accept the consignment,<\/p>\n
     because there were dues outstanding against M\/s.Deepak<\/p>\n
     Woollens Ltd. and M\/s.Gitanjali Woollens Pvt.Ltd. Then in<\/p>\n
     paragraphs 4 & 5 he states,<\/p>\n
                    “4.         A few days thereafter, Mr.Surendra<\/p>\n
                    Goel came to our office and approached Mr.Ketan
\n                    Dholakia and me. Mr.Surendra Goel requested us
\n                    to accept the fresh consignment stating that<\/p>\n
                    Deepak Woollens Limited and Gitanjali Woollens
\n                    Private Limited were facing a temporary liquidity
\n                    crunch and would clear the outstandings. At this
\n                    point, I spoke to my General Manager over the
\n                    telephone and apprised him of my conversation<\/p>\n
                    with Mr.Surendra Goel. Mr.Varadarajan, the
\n                    General Manager, told me that we could accept
\n                    the consignment on the condition that the Bills of
\n                    Lading in respect of the consignment would be
\n                    released only after both Deepak Woollens Limited
\n                    and Gitanjali Woollens Private Limited cleared all
\n                    their outstanding dues and the freight charges for<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:13 :::<\/span>
\n             Kambli               35       App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
                     the fresh consignment.\n<\/p>\n
                     5.    I communicated this to Mr.Surendra Goel<\/p>\n
                     who agreed that the Bills of Lading in respect of
\n                     the fresh consignment need not be released till<\/p>\n
                     both Deepak Woollens Limited and Gitanjali
\n                     Woollens Private Limited cleared all their
\n                     outstandings and the freight charges for the fresh
\n                     consignment. I also told Mr.Surendra Goel that any<\/p>\n
                     payments made by the Plaintiff and\/or Deepak
\n                     Woollens Limited would first be appropriated
\n                     towards the past dues of Gitanjali Woollens Private
\n                     Limited and Deepak Woollens Limited set out in
\n                     para 5 of the written statement. Mr.Goel agreed. It<\/p>\n
                     was on this understanding that Defendant No.3
\n                     accepted the fresh consignment which forms the<\/p>\n
                     subject matter of the present suit and shipped two
\n                     containers to Assab abroad the Vessel X-press
\n                     Annapurna, which left the Mumbai Port on 7th April<\/p>\n
                     1998.\n<\/p>\n
     .     In so far as paragraphs 4 & 5 of the examination in chief<\/p>\n
     of witness Mr.Mahadevan is concerned, all that is to be found<\/p>\n
     in the cross-examination of the Plaintiff is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                     “It is not true that the statement made by me in
\n                     paragraph 4 of my examination in chief that
\n                     Mr.Surendra Goel approached Mr.Dolkia.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     There is no other cross-examination.           There is no cross-\n<\/p>\n
     examination whatsoever about what is stated in paragraph 5<\/p>\n
     of the examination-in-chief.\n<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:13 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
             Kambli               36         App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
     23.             It is, thus, clear from the record that though on 14th<\/p>\n
     July, 1998 the validity of the letter of credit was extended, by<\/p>\n
     letter dated 24th July, 1998 the Plaintiff demanded the amount<\/p>\n
     of loss on the ground that the validity of the letter of credit has<\/p>\n
     expired. Thus, the reason that was given by the Plaintiff for<\/p>\n
     not delivery of the bills of lading namely expiry of the letter of<\/p>\n
     credit was a false reason.            In our opinion, therefore, it<\/p>\n
     appears that the real reason why the Plaintiff did not demand<\/p>\n
     delivery of Bills of lading was the inability of the Plaintiff to<\/p>\n
     clear the due of M\/s.Deepak Woollen Pvt.Ltd. , which the<\/p>\n
     Plaintiff had agreed to clear before demanding the delivery of<\/p>\n
     Bill of lading. It, thus, appears that the Plaintiff has not been<\/p>\n
     able to establish that he demanded the delivery of Bills of<\/p>\n
     lading from the third Defendant. We have already pointed out<\/p>\n
     above that under Article (III)(3), the carrier is under no duty to<\/p>\n
     deliver Bills of lading without it being demanded by the<\/p>\n
     shipper, and therefore, as the Plaintiff- who was the shipper –\n<\/p>\n
     did not demand the delivery of Bills of lading, the Defendant<\/p>\n
     No.3 was under no obligation to deliver the same, and<\/p>\n
     therefore, the entire basis of the Plaintiff’s claim in the suit<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:13 :::<\/span>
\n            Kambli              37        App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
     disappears. In our opinion, therefore, the Plaintiff was not<\/p>\n
     entitled to make any claim against the Defendants.\n<\/p>\n
     24.            Really speaking as we have held that the Plaintiff<\/p>\n
     never demanded delivery of the Bills of Lading from the<\/p>\n
     Defendant No.3, the very basis of the suit of the Plaintiff<\/p>\n
     disappears and the suit is liable to be dismissed. However,<\/p>\n
     as we have heard the parties on all the points, in our opinion,<\/p>\n
     it will be in the interest of justice to decide the other points<\/p>\n
     that were urged.\n<\/p>\n
     25.            The second point which according to us is to be<\/p>\n
     considered is , whether the learned single Judge was justified<\/p>\n
     in passing a decree in terms of prayer clause (ai), because<\/p>\n
     though the suit was filed in the year 1999 amendment in the<\/p>\n
     plaint for inserting prayer (ai) was allowed by order dated<\/p>\n
     20-1-2004 keeping the question of limitation expressly open.\n<\/p>\n
     The issue of limitation, though raised, has not been<\/p>\n
     considered by the learned single Judge in the impugned<\/p>\n
     judgment. The suit was filed in the month of March, 1999 on<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:13 :::<\/span>
\n             Kambli               38       App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
     a cause of action which according to the Plaintiff arose in<\/p>\n
     June-July, 1998.\n<\/p>\n
     26.             The Plaintiff pleaded their entire cause of action<\/p>\n
     in the body of the plaint        and stated in the plaint that they<\/p>\n
     were entitled to proceed against the Defendants Nos. 2 & 3 in<\/p>\n
     personam. They made claim against the Defendants Nos. 2 &<\/p>\n
     3 in the body of the plaint, but no prayer was made claiming<\/p>\n
     any decree against the Defendants Nos. 2 & 3. In fact, there<\/p>\n
     was no decree claimed against any of the Defendants in the<\/p>\n
     suit as it was filed in March, 1999. What the Plaintiff sought to<\/p>\n
     do was to enforce only maritime lien, which they claimed<\/p>\n
     against the first Defendant-vessel. Furthermore, by prayer<\/p>\n
     clause (b), the Plaintiff sought leave of the court under Order<\/p>\n
     2 Rule II for leave to sue for other reliefs which according to<\/p>\n
     them they were entitled. This clearly shows that the Plaintiff<\/p>\n
     deliberately and intentionally omitted to ask for any relief<\/p>\n
     against the Defendants Nos. 2 & 3. When the evidence was<\/p>\n
     being recorded, the Plaintiff moved an application for<\/p>\n
     amendment to introduce prayer (ai) in the suit. The<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:13 :::<\/span>
\n            Kambli              39       App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
     amendment was allowed keeping the question of limitation<\/p>\n
     open. It is, thus, clear that when prayer clause (ai) was<\/p>\n
     inserted, the period of limitation for institution of a suit for a<\/p>\n
     decree on a cause of action, which arose in 1998 had already<\/p>\n
     expired. Therefore, it is clear that no decree in terms of prayer<\/p>\n
     clause (ai) could have been passed by the learned single<\/p>\n
     Judge.\n<\/p>\n
     27.<\/p>\n
                    In the case of Munilal v\/s. The Oriental Fire and<\/p>\n
     General Insurance Company Limited and anr. AIR 1996 SC<\/p>\n
     642, the Supreme Court held that a party could not be<\/p>\n
     permitted to amend the plaint after the suit for the reliefs in<\/p>\n
     question was barred by time during the pendency of the<\/p>\n
     proceedings. The Appellant in that case had filed a suit<\/p>\n
     against the Insurance Company seeking a declaration that he<\/p>\n
     was entitled to the total loss of the truck from the Insurance<\/p>\n
     Company. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground<\/p>\n
     that the suit was for a mere declaration and and<\/p>\n
     consequential relief for payment of compensation had not<\/p>\n
     been sought. Before the Supreme Court, it was contended by<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:13 :::<\/span>
\n            Kambli             40      App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
     the Appellant that the First Appellate Court and the High Court<\/p>\n
     were wrong in refusing to permit the Appellant to amend his<\/p>\n
     plaint by introducing consequential relief for payment of<\/p>\n
     compensation. The Supreme Court however held that the<\/p>\n
     First Appellate Court and the High Court were right in<\/p>\n
     rejecting the application for amendment as a fresh suit for the<\/p>\n
     said relief had by that time become barred by limitation. It is<\/p>\n
     pertinent to note that in the case before the Supreme Court,<\/p>\n
     the entire cause of action had been pleaded by the Appellant<\/p>\n
     who in fact sought a declaration that he was entitled to claim<\/p>\n
     the losses that he had suffered from the Insurance Company.\n<\/p>\n
     Despite this position, the Supreme Court held that the<\/p>\n
     Appellate Court and the High Court were right in rejecting the<\/p>\n
     Appellant’s application for amendment.\n<\/p>\n
     28.            In the case of Tarlok Singh v\/s. Vijay Kumar<\/p>\n
     Sabarwal, (1996) 8 SCC 367, the Supreme Court held that<\/p>\n
     the suit for specific performance was barred by limitation, as<\/p>\n
     by the time the relief of specific performance was introduced<\/p>\n
     in the plaint by way of amendment, a fresh suit for specific<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:13 :::<\/span>
\n             Kambli              41       App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
     performance had become barred by limitation. The Supreme<\/p>\n
     Court held that the amendment would operate with effect from<\/p>\n
     the date the amendment was allowed by the Court and by<\/p>\n
     that date, the suit for specific performance which had been<\/p>\n
     initially filed for perpetual injunction to restrain the Defendant<\/p>\n
     from committing breach of the contract, had become barred<\/p>\n
     by limitation.\n<\/p>\n
     29.<\/p>\n
                     It was contended before us that the Plaintiff had<\/p>\n
     pleaded all the facts necessary for claiming a decree in terms<\/p>\n
     of prayer clause (ai) in the plaint, as it was filed in March,<\/p>\n
     1999, but only prayer was not made. In our opinion, the<\/p>\n
     submission of the Plaintiff is not well founded. By prayer<\/p>\n
     clause (b), the Plaintiff has stated that he will seek leave of<\/p>\n
     the court under Order II Rule 2 of CPC. Perusal of the<\/p>\n
     provisions of Order II Rule 2 shows that when a suit is filed,<\/p>\n
     the Plaintiff has to claim all the reliefs to which he is entitled<\/p>\n
     on the same cause of action. He can only omit to sue for any<\/p>\n
     relief to which he is entitled on the same cause of action only<\/p>\n
     with the leave of the court. Perusal of the plaint shows that<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:13 :::<\/span>
\n            Kambli               42        App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
     prayer clause (b) reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
          (b)       That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant Leave<\/p>\n
     under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1980;\n<\/p>\n
     This clearly shows that the Plaintiff had deliberately omitted to<\/p>\n
     sue for the reliefs which he ultimately claimed by prayer<\/p>\n
     clause (ai), as the Plaintiff contemplated institution of a fresh<\/p>\n
     suit seeking that relief. But the Plaintiff never obtained such a<\/p>\n
     leave from any court. In this situation, therefore, in our<\/p>\n
     opinion, provisions of sub-rule 2 of Rule 2 of Order II become<\/p>\n
     relevant. They read as under:\n<\/p>\n
                    (2) Relinquishment of part of claim- Where a<\/p>\n
                    plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally
\n                    relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he shall not
\n                    afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted<\/p>\n
                    or relinquished.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     .              Perusal of the above quoted provisions makes it<\/p>\n
     clear that there is an obligation on every Plaintiff to claim all<\/p>\n
     the reliefs to which he is entitled on the same cause of action<\/p>\n
     in the same suit. If he does not want to claim all the reliefs in<\/p>\n
     that suit, then he has to seek leave of the court to omit to sue<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:13 :::<\/span>
\n             Kambli             43        App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
     for some of the reliefs and then he can institute a different suit<\/p>\n
     claiming those reliefs. But if the Plaintiff omits to claim all the<\/p>\n
     reliefs to which he is entitled on the same cause of action and<\/p>\n
     does not obtain leave of the court as contemplated by Order II<\/p>\n
     Rule 2, then he is barred from claiming those reliefs<\/p>\n
     subsequently. From the conduct of the Plaintiff, it is clear that<\/p>\n
     in this case he deliberately omitted to claim reliefs which he<\/p>\n
     later on        sought by prayer clause (ai). In our opinion,<\/p>\n
     therefore, in view of the provisions of sub-rule 2 of Rule 2 of<\/p>\n
     Order II, he could not have claimed reliefs in terms of prayer<\/p>\n
     clause (ai). Thus, apart from relief sought in terms of prayer<\/p>\n
     clause (ai) of the plaint being barred by law of limitation, it is<\/p>\n
     also barred by the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of the CPC.\n<\/p>\n
     30.             The third point which is to be considered is<\/p>\n
     whether any decree could have been passed against<\/p>\n
     Defendant No.3. It was specifically claimed on behalf of the<\/p>\n
     Defendant No.3 that            since the Defendant No.3 was<\/p>\n
     admittedly acting as an agent on behalf of the disclosed<\/p>\n
     principal namely the Defendant No.2, the Plaintiff could not<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:13 :::<\/span>
\n            Kambli                44        App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
     hold the Defendant No.3 liable for any loss allegedly caused<\/p>\n
     to it. The learned single Judge has while passing the decree<\/p>\n
     against the Defendant No. 3 has held that the fact that the<\/p>\n
     Defendant No.3 acted as agent on behalf of the disclosed<\/p>\n
     principal would not come to the aid of the Defendant No.3, as<\/p>\n
     the principal i.e. the Defendant No.2 was a foreign principal.\n<\/p>\n
     The relevant observations are to be found in paragraph 31 of<\/p>\n
     the judgment. It reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
                    “31.         The defendant no.3 has on the other<\/p>\n
                    hand contended that the defendant No.2 being
\n                    the principal and a disclosed principal under the
\n                    Contract Act, the 3rd defendant is not liable but
\n                    only the plaintiff is liable. It is an admitted position<\/p>\n
                    that the 2nd defendant is a foreign company and in
\n                    case of a foreign principal the liability of the 2nd<\/p>\n
                    defendant does not get discharged merely by
\n                    virtue of the fact that he is a disclosed principal. ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     .              It appears that the learned single Judge has totally<\/p>\n
     misread the provisions of Section 230 of the Indian Contract<\/p>\n
     Act. Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
                    230. Agent cannot personally enforce, nor be
\n                    bound by, contract on behalf of principal.- In the
\n                    absence of any contract to that effect an agent
\n                    cannot personally enforce contracts entered into<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:13 :::<\/span>
\n            Kambli               45        App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
                    by him on behalf of his principal, nor is he
\n                    personally bound by them.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    Presumption of contract to contrary.- Such a
\n                    contract shall be presumed to exist in the following<\/p>\n
                    cases:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      (1)Where the contract is made by an agent for
\n                         the sale or purchase of goods for a<\/p>\n
                         merchant resident abroad;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      (2)Where the agent does not disclose the
\n                         name of his principal;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      (3)where the principal, though disclosed,
\n                         cannot be sued.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     31.<\/p>\n
                    It appears that the learned single Judge is<\/p>\n
     referring to clause (1) of second part of Section 230. But that<\/p>\n
     clause will come into play where the contract is made by an<\/p>\n
     agent for the sale or purchase of the goods for a merchant<\/p>\n
     residing abroad. The contract which was subject matter of the<\/p>\n
     suit was not a contract for either sale or purchase of the<\/p>\n
     goods. In the present case, the Defendant No.3 acted as an<\/p>\n
     agent on behalf of the disclosed principal for carriage of<\/p>\n
     goods by sea and not for sale or purchase of goods, and<\/p>\n
     therefore, clearly no decree against Defendant No.3 could<\/p>\n
     have been passed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:13 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
             Kambli                46       App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
     32.             The fourth point that is to be considered is that the<\/p>\n
     learned single Judge has passed a decree in terms of prayer<\/p>\n
     clause (ai). By prayer clause (ai), the Plaintiff apart from<\/p>\n
     claiming the amount towards loss of goods, was claiming the<\/p>\n
     amount of US$ 50,000 as damages. In the particulars of claim<\/p>\n
     there are no particulars given of the loss. No particulars of the<\/p>\n
     damages were given in the pleadings by the Plaintiff. In the<\/p>\n
     particulars of claim, it was stated that the Plaintiff suffered<\/p>\n
     loss of US$ 50,000 on account of loss of business and loss of<\/p>\n
     reputation. The Plaintiff failed to state as to what was the<\/p>\n
     amount of damages claimed on account of loss of business<\/p>\n
     and on account of loss of reputation. Besides, merely stating<\/p>\n
     in the affidavit of examination-in-chief, the witness examined<\/p>\n
     by the Plaintiff, that the        Plaintiff had suffered damages of<\/p>\n
     US $ 50000 on account of loss of business and loss of<\/p>\n
     reputation, no other evidence was led by the Plaintiff. In the<\/p>\n
     entire judgment impugned in the appeal, there is no<\/p>\n
     discussion on this aspect of the matter, and the learned single<\/p>\n
     Judge has passed the decree for payment of US $ 50000<\/p>\n
     towards damages. In our opinion, looking at the matter from<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:13 :::<\/span>
\n            Kambli               47             App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
     any point of view no decree for damages could have been<\/p>\n
     passed.\n<\/p>\n
     33.            The fifth point is,    on behalf of the Defendants<\/p>\n
     Nos.1 & 4 it was claimed that there is no privity of contract<\/p>\n
     between the Plaintiff and the Defendants Nos.1 & 4. The case<\/p>\n
     of the Plaintiff in the plaint is that the Defendant No.1 has not<\/p>\n
     issued Bills of Lading in respect of the suit consignment. In<\/p>\n
     paragraph 9 of the plaint, the Plaintiff has stated that the first<\/p>\n
     Defendant has under an obligation to issue transport<\/p>\n
     documents in the nature of of Bills of Lading in respect of two<\/p>\n
     containers. It is an admitted position that the first Defendant<\/p>\n
     vessel had carried the goods to the port of Destination and<\/p>\n
     discharged       the    goods.       In     the       examination-in-chief<\/p>\n
     Mr.Surendra Goel has also deposed that containers shipped<\/p>\n
     on the first Defendant vessel were discharged at Assab.\n<\/p>\n
     There is no pleading and no evidence, which would show that<\/p>\n
     there was any contract between the Defendants Nos. 1 and 4<\/p>\n
     on one hand and the Plaintiff on the other hand to deliver to<\/p>\n
     the Plaintiff the Bills of Lading. The contract for delivering the<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:13 :::<\/span>
\n            Kambli              48       App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
     Bills of Lading even according to the Plaintiff was between the<\/p>\n
     Plaintiff and the Defendant No.3, who was acting as agent of<\/p>\n
     Defendant No.2. We have already held above that the Plaintiff<\/p>\n
     never demanded delivery of Bills of Lading from the third<\/p>\n
     Defendant. The cause of action which is narrated in the plaint<\/p>\n
     by the Plaintiff is based on failure of the third Defendant to<\/p>\n
     deliver the Bills of Lading to the Plaintiff, as admittedly there<\/p>\n
     was no contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendants<\/p>\n
     Nos.1 & 4 for delivery of Bills of Lading, in our opinion, no<\/p>\n
     decree could have been passed by the learned single Judge<\/p>\n
     against the Defendants Nos. 1 & 4 and in favour of the<\/p>\n
     Plaintiff. The job entrusted to the Defendant No.1-vessel was<\/p>\n
     to deliver the consignment at the port of destination and it is<\/p>\n
     an admitted fact that the consignment was delivered by the<\/p>\n
     Defendant No.1-vessel at the port of destination. In our<\/p>\n
     opinion, therefore, it is unfair to pass any decree against the<\/p>\n
     Defendant No.1-vessel or its owner.\n<\/p>\n
     34.            One more contention was urged before us that as<\/p>\n
     the defendant No.1-vessel admittedly was not within the<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:13 :::<\/span>
\n            Kambli             49        App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005<\/p>\n
     maritime jurisdiction of this court, on the date on which the<\/p>\n
     suit was filed, the suit was not maintainable in the admiralty<\/p>\n
     jurisdiction of this court. But as we have taken the view that<\/p>\n
     the very basis of the suit of the Plaintiff was non-existent, in<\/p>\n
     our opinion , it is not necessary to decide that question in<\/p>\n
     these Appeals.\n<\/p>\n
     35.            For the aforesaid reasons, therefore, all the<\/p>\n
     Appeals succeed and are allowed. The judgment and order of<\/p>\n
     the learned single Judge impugned in the Appeals is set<\/p>\n
     aside. The suit filed by the Plaintiff is dismissed. The Plaintiff<\/p>\n
     is directed to pay costs to all the Defendants. Security, if any,<\/p>\n
     given by the Defendants be discharged.\n<\/p>\n
     At the request of the learned Counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
     Plaintiff, it is directed that the Prothonotary & Sr.Master will<\/p>\n
     discharge the bank guarantee pursuant to this order after a<\/p>\n
     period of four weeks from today.\n<\/p>\n
                                         (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)<\/p>\n
                                         (K.K.TATED, J.)<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:05:13 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Mv.X.Press Annapurana & Anr vs Gitanjali Woolens Pvt.Ltd. & Ors on 11 March, 2011 Bench: D.K. Deshmukh, K. K. Tated Kambli 1 App.747, 749 & 750 of 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION … APPEAL NO.747 OF 2005 IN ADMIRALTY SUIT NO.27 OF 1999 … […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-118387","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMv.X.Press Annapurana & Anr vs Gitanjali Woolens Pvt.Ltd. & Ors on 11 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mv-x-press-annapurana-anr-vs-gitanjali-woolens-pvt-ltd-ors-on-11-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mv.X.Press Annapurana & Anr vs Gitanjali Woolens Pvt.Ltd. & Ors on 11 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mv-x-press-annapurana-anr-vs-gitanjali-woolens-pvt-ltd-ors-on-11-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-02T05:14:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"48 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mv-x-press-annapurana-anr-vs-gitanjali-woolens-pvt-ltd-ors-on-11-march-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mv-x-press-annapurana-anr-vs-gitanjali-woolens-pvt-ltd-ors-on-11-march-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mv.X.Press Annapurana & Anr vs Gitanjali Woolens Pvt.Ltd. & Ors on 11 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-02T05:14:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mv-x-press-annapurana-anr-vs-gitanjali-woolens-pvt-ltd-ors-on-11-march-2011\"},\"wordCount\":9489,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mv-x-press-annapurana-anr-vs-gitanjali-woolens-pvt-ltd-ors-on-11-march-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mv-x-press-annapurana-anr-vs-gitanjali-woolens-pvt-ltd-ors-on-11-march-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mv-x-press-annapurana-anr-vs-gitanjali-woolens-pvt-ltd-ors-on-11-march-2011\",\"name\":\"Mv.X.Press Annapurana & Anr vs Gitanjali Woolens Pvt.Ltd. & Ors on 11 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-02T05:14:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mv-x-press-annapurana-anr-vs-gitanjali-woolens-pvt-ltd-ors-on-11-march-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mv-x-press-annapurana-anr-vs-gitanjali-woolens-pvt-ltd-ors-on-11-march-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mv-x-press-annapurana-anr-vs-gitanjali-woolens-pvt-ltd-ors-on-11-march-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mv.X.Press Annapurana & Anr vs Gitanjali Woolens Pvt.Ltd. & Ors on 11 March, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mv.X.Press Annapurana & Anr vs Gitanjali Woolens Pvt.Ltd. & Ors on 11 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mv-x-press-annapurana-anr-vs-gitanjali-woolens-pvt-ltd-ors-on-11-march-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mv.X.Press Annapurana & Anr vs Gitanjali Woolens Pvt.Ltd. & Ors on 11 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mv-x-press-annapurana-anr-vs-gitanjali-woolens-pvt-ltd-ors-on-11-march-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-02T05:14:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"48 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mv-x-press-annapurana-anr-vs-gitanjali-woolens-pvt-ltd-ors-on-11-march-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mv-x-press-annapurana-anr-vs-gitanjali-woolens-pvt-ltd-ors-on-11-march-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mv.X.Press Annapurana & Anr vs Gitanjali Woolens Pvt.Ltd. & Ors on 11 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-02T05:14:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mv-x-press-annapurana-anr-vs-gitanjali-woolens-pvt-ltd-ors-on-11-march-2011"},"wordCount":9489,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mv-x-press-annapurana-anr-vs-gitanjali-woolens-pvt-ltd-ors-on-11-march-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mv-x-press-annapurana-anr-vs-gitanjali-woolens-pvt-ltd-ors-on-11-march-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mv-x-press-annapurana-anr-vs-gitanjali-woolens-pvt-ltd-ors-on-11-march-2011","name":"Mv.X.Press Annapurana & Anr vs Gitanjali Woolens Pvt.Ltd. & Ors on 11 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-02T05:14:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mv-x-press-annapurana-anr-vs-gitanjali-woolens-pvt-ltd-ors-on-11-march-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mv-x-press-annapurana-anr-vs-gitanjali-woolens-pvt-ltd-ors-on-11-march-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mv-x-press-annapurana-anr-vs-gitanjali-woolens-pvt-ltd-ors-on-11-march-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mv.X.Press Annapurana & Anr vs Gitanjali Woolens Pvt.Ltd. & Ors on 11 March, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118387","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=118387"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118387\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=118387"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=118387"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=118387"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}