<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1989 (4) TMI 234 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81718</link>
    <description>Under the Calcutta Port Trust Act, limitation for a consignee&#039;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&#039;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.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Apr 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:58:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118863" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (4) TMI 234 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81718</link>
      <description>Under the Calcutta Port Trust Act, limitation for a consignee&#039;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&#039;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.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Apr 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81718</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>