https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279240 A bailor may sue a sub-bailee directly for loss of goods, and absence of privity with the handling agent does not defeat the claim; the carrier was not a necessary party. The ordinary care rules under Sections 151 and 152 of the Contract Act could not displace the special liability regime governing carriage by air, so the handling agent could not avoid responsibility by relying on bailment principles. Foreign currency damages were to be converted into Indian rupees at the exchange rate prevailing on the date of judgment, and the decree applying that rate was upheld. en-us Tue, 02 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Mar 2019 17:01:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279240 A bailor may sue a sub-bailee directly for loss of goods, and absence of privity with the handling agent does not defeat the claim; the carrier was not a necessary party. The ordinary care rules under Sections 151 and 152 of the Contract Act could not displace the special liability regime governing carriage by air, so the handling agent could not avoid responsibility by relying on bailment principles. Foreign currency damages were to be converted into Indian rupees at the exchange rate prevailing on the date of judgment, and the decree applying that rate was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 02 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279240