Bill of lading terms bind the consignee, and shipowner liability exclusions may be contractually upheld.
A consignee claiming delivery under a bill of lading is bound by its contractual terms under the Bills of Lading Act, 1856, because the statute treats the contract as made with the consignee and does not require separate assent to each condition. A shipowner may also rely on an express contractual exemption against the bailee's minimum liability under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, so the bill of lading exemption was upheld. The High Court further held that its saved supervisory jurisdiction under Bombay Regulation II of 1827 remained available despite Section 115 CPC, and the exceptional case justified interference. The lower appellate order was therefore set aside and the trial court decree restored.
Issues: (i) Whether a consignee claiming delivery under a bill of lading is bound by the contractual terms contained in it. (ii) Whether a shipowner can contract out of the minimum liability of a bailee under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. (iii) Whether the High Court could interfere in revision under its saved powers under Bombay Regulation II of 1827, notwithstanding Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Issue (i): Whether a consignee claiming delivery under a bill of lading is bound by the contractual terms contained in it.
Analysis: Section 1 of the Bills of Lading Act, 1856 transfers to the consignee the rights of suit and liabilities in respect of the goods as if the contract in the bill of lading had been made with him. On the facts, the goods were sent by the consignee's agent and the consignee claimed delivery under the very bill of lading in question. The contrary view that express assent by the consignee to every condition was necessary was held inconsistent with the statute and with mercantile practice.
Conclusion: The consignee was bound by the terms of the bill of lading, and this issue was decided against the respondent and in favour of the appellant.
Issue (ii): Whether a shipowner can contract out of the minimum liability of a bailee under the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Analysis: The argument rested on the bailment provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, especially the duty of care imposed on a bailee. The Court declined to adopt the view that such provisions prevented an express contractual exemption in the case of carriage by sea, and treated the earlier authority supporting contractual protection for shipowners as applicable.
Conclusion: The contractual exemption in the bill of lading was not invalid on this ground, and this issue was decided against the respondent and in favour of the appellant.
Issue (iii): Whether the High Court could interfere in revision under its saved powers under Bombay Regulation II of 1827, notwithstanding Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Analysis: The earlier Bombay Regulation conferred supervisory powers which were preserved despite repeal, and the later statutory provisions were treated as not taking away that established jurisdiction. The Court held that it could act under the Regulation even if Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not attracted, and regarded the matter as an exceptional case warranting interference.
Conclusion: The High Court had jurisdiction to interfere and was justified in doing so in the present case.
Final Conclusion: The revisional court set aside the lower appellate order, restored the decree of the trial court, and granted relief to the shipping company on the footing that the consignee was bound by the bill of lading and that the High Court could exercise its saved supervisory power.
Ratio Decidendi: A consignee who claims delivery under a bill of lading is subject to its contractual terms by force of the Bills of Lading Act, and the High Court may exercise saved supervisory jurisdiction under the preserved Bombay Regulation where the circumstances are exceptional.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
