Short-delivery limitation under Port Trust law runs from knowledge of custody and expected delivery, not later search correspondence.

Section 87 of the Bombay Port Trust Act was construed broadly to protect the Port Trust in short-delivery claims, including non-delivery arising from omissions closely connected with the discharge of statutory duties. The provision applied where the conduct had a reasonable nexus with official functions, so the plea that an omission fell outside the section was rejected. Limitation for short delivery began when the consignee knew, or should reasonably have known, that the goods had been landed, were in the Board's custody, and should have been delivered; the date on which the bulk was delivered was treated as a strong indicator for the missing goods. Later letters about searching for the goods did not extend time, and the claim was held time-barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the short-delivery suit against the Port Trust was governed by the special limitation and notice provision in section 87 of the Bombay Port Trust Act, 1879, including cases of omission in the course of official duty. (ii) When the cause of action accrued for short delivery and whether subsequent correspondence about tracing the missing goods postponed limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the short-delivery suit against the Port Trust was governed by the special limitation and notice provision in section 87 of the Bombay Port Trust Act, 1879, including cases of omission in the course of official duty.

Analysis: The statutory scheme made the Board a bailee on landing of goods and imposed a short period for removal, after which special protection under section 87 was meant to operate. The expression "anything done, or purporting to have been done, in pursuance of this Act" was construed broadly and, in this setting, included non-delivery arising out of the performance of official functions. A course of conduct comprising both acts and omissions, where the omission is linked to the discharge of statutory duty, was held to fall within the protection of the section.

Conclusion: Section 87 applied to the suit, and the plea that non-delivery was outside its scope was rejected.

Issue (ii): When the cause of action accrued for short delivery and whether subsequent correspondence about tracing the missing goods postponed limitation.

Analysis: The cause of action was held to arise when the consignee knew, or with reasonable diligence ought to have known, that the goods had been landed and were in the Board's custody, and when delivery should normally have been made. The Court treated the date of delivery of the bulk of the consignment as a strong indicator for the missing part also, absent special circumstances. Letters saying that the goods were being searched for did not postpone limitation once the factual basis of the claim had emerged. Applying these principles, the claimant had knowledge by 7 November 1959 and the suit filed on 18 June 1960 was out of time.

Conclusion: Limitation began to run by 7 November 1959, and the suit was time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the decree in favour of the plaintiffs could not stand because the claim was barred by the special limitation provision governing short delivery by the Port Trust.

Ratio Decidendi: For limitation provisions protecting public bodies, an omission in the course of statutory duty may be treated as an act done in pursuance of the statute if it has a reasonable nexus with official functions, and in short-delivery claims limitation runs from the point when the consignee knows or ought reasonably to know of the landing and expected deliverability of the goods, not from later search correspondence.

---