Find a Lawyer

S. 73 read with Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (XXVI of 1925), Sched., Art. NI, r. 6‑Limitation‑Rule lays down a period of limitation and not of prescription‑Consignee receiving cargo nearly two years before respondent filed suit against appellants for recovery of amount paid as damages to consignee in respect of damage caused to insured cargo‑Claim, held, hit by limitation.

British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Abdul Razak Abdul Kader P L D 1967 S C 68 ; Haji Shakoor Gany (Firm) v. Volkart Bros. A I R 1931 Sind 124 ; Issak Haji Shakoor Haji Jamal Co. v. Messrs United Oriental Steamship Co. and others P L D 1960 Kar. 99 ; East & West Steamship Co. v. S. K. Ramalingam Chettlar A I R 1960 S C 1058 ; Goulandris Bros. Ltd. v. B. Goldman & Sons Ltd. (1958) 1 Q B 74 ; Scrutton on Charter Parties & Bills of Lading, 17th Edn., p. 407 and Tetley on Marine Cargo Claims, p. 202 ref.

Abdul Jalil Choudhury v. The Muhammadi Steamship Co. Ltd. P L D 1961 S C 340 rel.

S. 73 read with Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (XXVI of 1925), Sched.. Art. 3, r. 6‑Limitation, extension of period of‑Extension of time for performance of contract of affreightment ‑Can always be made by carrier‑Parties also competent to enter into fresh contract for delivery of cargo shipped‑Such course, however, possible only as long as delivery not completed‑Consignment once delivered to consignee, whether in damaged or undamaged condition‑Neither party could extend period of limitation or enter into fresh agreement of delivery‑Repudiation of liability clear and unqualified‑Defendant even if supposedly granting extension of time, such agreement, nevertheless, illegal.

Abdul Jaltl Choudhury v. The Muhammadi Steamship Co. Ltd. P L D 1961 S C 340 and Messrs Karim Commercial Co. Ltd. v. The United Oriental Steamship Co. P L D 1970 Kar. 427 ref.

- S. 73‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 18‑Misrepresentation‑Con tention that plaintiffs‑respondents treated defendant‑appellants' assu rance as assurance of payment of their claim, hence, did not file suit, and such assurance amounting to misrepresentation within meaning of S. 18, Limitation Act, time for filing suit stood extended‑Alleged assurance, however, neither assurance to pay, nor acknowledgment of liability, but an unequivocal repudiation of liability‑Plaintiffs respondents' contention, in circumstances, held, an abuse of process of Court and rejected.

The East 8c West Steamship Co. v. Hossain Bros. and others P L D 1968 S G 15 ref.

Haji Adam v. Levant Line and others P L D 1959 Kar. 364 held not applicable.

--O. VII, r. 6‑Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 115‑Estoppel‑Parties cannot be allowed to depart from their pleadings save in some very exceptional cases‑Plea of estoppel raising mixed question of fact and law not pleaded in suit‑Not allowed to be urged‑[Central Insurance Company Ltd. v. Chittagong Steamship Corporation Ltd. P L D 1968 Kar. 252 dissented from].

National Carriers Ltd. v. Pestonji Bhlcanjee P L D 1973 Kar. 309 distinguished.

Central Insurance Company Ltd. v. Chittagong Steamship Corporation Ltd.

P L D 1968 Kar. 252 dissented from.

Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan P L D 1964 Lah. 444 ref.

‑‑ S. 67‑Proof of document‑Document not proved through its author‑Inadmissible in evidence‑Witness admitting to have had nothing to do with entries sought to be proved through him Document, held, not proved.

Tar Muhamad Janoo & Co. v. Messrs Maldiviah Natianal Corporation (Ceylon) Ltd. P L D 1969 Kar. 495 ; Bengal Friends & Co. v. Gour Benode Saha & Co. P L D 1969 S C 477 and Muhammad Yousuf v. S. M. Ayub P L D 1973 S C 160 ref.

Salim Akhter for Appellants.

Abdul Rauf for Respondent.

Dates of hearing : 21st, 27th March; 2nd and 3rd April 1975.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.