Port custody and limitation: delivery rights arise only when goods are actually deliverable, and bailee care applies to loss in custody.

Under the Calcutta Port Trust Act, limitation for a consignee's suit does not run from the date goods are landed if the cargo is not yet in a deliverable state because it has been pilfered while in the Port's custody; the relevant point is when the consignee first has an effective right and opportunity to take delivery, so the special limitation plea fails. The Commissioners are also treated as bailees while goods remain in their possession or control, and must exercise the care of an ordinary prudent person under the Contract Act; where machinery is lost from custody without proof of due care, the Port remains answerable for the loss.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit was barred by the special period of limitation under the Calcutta Port Trust Act, 1890; (ii) whether the Port Commissioners were liable as bailees for the pilferage of the imported machinery while in their custody.

Issue (i): Whether the suit was barred by the special period of limitation under the Calcutta Port Trust Act, 1890.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 113 of the Calcutta Port Trust Act, 1890 fastens immediate custody on the Commissioners when goods are landed, but the consignee's obligation to remove the goods within five clear working days arises only when the goods are actually available for delivery and there is no fault on the part of the Port authorities. On the facts found, the goods were not available in deliverable condition because they had been pilfered while in the Port's custody. The Court treated the cause of action as arising when the goods were made ready for delivery and the consignee first had an effective right to take delivery, not from the original landing date. In those circumstances, the special limitation plea failed.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred by limitation and the plea under the Port Act failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the Port Commissioners were liable as bailees for the pilferage of the imported machinery while in their custody.

Analysis: Section 112(1) of the Calcutta Port Trust Act, 1890 makes the Commissioners responsible for loss, destruction or deterioration while goods remain in their possession or control, and the duty is that of a bailee under Sections 151 and 152 of the Contract Act, 1872. A bailee must take the care of the goods that an ordinary prudent person would take of his own goods, and is not exonerated unless that level of care is shown. Here, the machinery was admittedly removed from the Port's custody and there was no evidence of due care sufficient to discharge the statutory and common-law obligation. The Port authorities therefore remained answerable for the loss.

Conclusion: The Port Commissioners were liable for the loss of the goods as bailees.

Final Conclusion: The judgment of the trial court was set aside, the appellant's claim was decreed, and the appeal succeeded without any order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods in port custody are not in a deliverable state because they have been lost or pilfered before delivery, limitation does not run from the date of landing merely because the cargo was physically received; it runs from the point when the consignee first has an effective right and opportunity to take delivery.

---