TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 106
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 rolls of hand-woven carpets. Subsequently, the Plaintiff Firm entered into an Agreement with Defendant No. 1, M/s Tiger Logistics (India) Ltd. and Defendant No. 2, M/s Century Cargo Forwarders for dispatch of the said consignment, which was valued at $1,13,057.38/- (i.e. Rs.70,76,351.86/-), to the port of Vitoria, Brazil. Defendant No. 3, thereafter, made a payment for a sum of Rs.12,67,350/- towards the Order and it was agreed that the remaining amount of Rs. 61,73,290/-, would be paid later. 4. The Plaintiff Firm vide Invoice No. MCE/2014-15/082 dated 09.02.2015, entrusted the said consignment to Defendant No. 1 as the forwarding and clearing agent, for the transshipment of the Order from Mumbai, India to Vitoria, Brazil. Thereafter, the Plaintiff firm transferred a sum of Rs.54,198/- to Defendant No. 2, towards the cost of transportation, which amount, in turn, was paid to Defendant No. 1 on behalf of Plaintiff Firm. Consequent, upon receiving the goods, Defendant No. 1 prepared the relevant documents, i.e. three original copies of Bill of Lading dated 02.03.2015 and shipped the goods to the destined port of Vitoria, Brazil. 5. Subsequently, Defendant No. 3 failed to mak....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd has taken recourse of automatic custom clearance of the goods. Moreover, in the aforesaid Letter, Defendant No. 1 admitted that the goods were delivered on the basis of "UNTO Order". 12. It was further claimed that, the Plaintiff Firm vide e-mail dated 29.02.2016, asked Defendant No. 1 to furnish proof of delivery of goods, however, it failed to provide the same. Subsequently, Defendant No. 3 vide e-mail dated 13.06.2016 gave a proposal to the Plaintiff Firm that it should sell the goods to some other customer in Brazil, as they were unable to make the balance payment or take back the container of the goods. 13. The Plaintiff Firm further asserted that it had dealt with Defendant No. 3, earlier as well, on the same terms and conditions, as mentioned in the Original Bill of Lading and that the goods were not be released to the buyer without presentation of the same to the shipper. 14. There was clear breach of the terms by Defendant No. 1, as the goods that had been entrusted by the Plaintiff Firm for transshipment from Mumbai to Brazil, with a specific condition that the goods should not be released to the buyer, without presentation of the Original Bill of Ladings at t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion disclosed against Defendant No. 1 in the Plaint, the Suit is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC. 22. Further, the Suit filed by the Plaintiff Firm is barred by limitation under Section 24 of the Multimodal Transportation of Goods Act, 1993. 23. On merits, all the averments made in the Plaint were denied. 24. Separate Written Statements were filed by Defendant Nos.2 &3. 25. Thereafter, Defendant No. 1 preferred an Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of the Plaint as well as an Application under Order I Rule 10 for deletion of its name on the ground that it was not a necessary party in the present Suit. 26. The Learned District Judge vide impugned Order dated 22.11.2018 observed that as per Section 24 of the Multimodal Transportation of Goods Act, 1993, the Suit could have been filed only within a period of nine months. Furthermore, Section 29 of Multimodal Transportation of Goods Act provided that the limitation, as provided in this Act, would prevail over any other law. Likewise, Section 28(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, also states that notwithstanding anything contained in the Limitation Act, any limitatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the instructions of the Plaintiff Firm. 31. In terms of Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, an agent cannot personally enforce, nor be bound by, contracts on behalf of the principal. Section 232 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides that the performance of the contract with an agent, is supposed to be with the principal. It was held that in the facts of the case, Defendant No. 1 cannot be fastened with the liability of Defendant No. 3, i.e. the principal and Defendant No. 2, in any way. 32. Moreover, the goods were delivered at the destined port of Victoria, Brazil were as per local Laws and Practice. Therefore, the liability of Defendant No. 1 ceased once the goods were put into transportation and delivered; no liability can be fastened on to Defendant No. 1. It was held that it was Defendant No. 3, which had admitted its liability to pay for the goods supplied by the Plaintiff Firm, but failed due to financial crises. 33. It was therefore, concluded that Suit of the Plaintiff Firm against Defendant No. 1 was barred by limitation; there was no privity of contract and there was no cause of action. Thus, the Application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder VII Rule 11 CPC and Application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC were allowed. 41. Written Submissions have been filed on behalf of the respective parties, which are on similar lines as the rival contentions already noted above. Submissions heard and record perused. 42. In the present case, admittedly, the Plaintiff Firm had entered into a contract with Defendant No. 3, whereby the Plaintiff Firm had undertaken to supply 951 rolls of hand-woven carpet, vide Invoice dated 09.02.2015. The goods were stated to be delivered at port of Vitória, Brazil. 43. What emerges from the pleadings is that the Plaintiff Firm had entered into an Agreement with Defendant No. 2 for arranging transportation of goods from India to Brazil, who in turn engaged Defendant No. 1, as the Forwarding Agent for the transport of the said goods to Port Vitória, Brazil. From the averments made in the Plaint itself, it is evident that there was no contract between Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and the Plaintiff Firm. The entire contract between the Plaintiff was against Defendant No. 3. In case, there was no delivery of goods or payments against the delivery had not been made, the cause of actio....