Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2 It is necessary to set out the factual matrix of the case in a nutshell for the purpose of better appreciation of this order / judgment. Therefore, the factual matrix of the instant case in a nutshell is set out infra under the caption 'Concise factual matrix'.

3 Concise Factual Matrix :

(a) Plaintiff is a manufacturer inter-alia of Lead Acid Batteries. Such lead acid batteries of plaintiff are manufactured by smelting and refining of lead and allied alloys and for this purpose, it is plaintiff's say that it requires remelted lead ingots which according to plaintiff is an essential ingredient for plaintiff's manufacturing activity.
(b) In the aforesaid nature of business of plaintiff, plaintiff entered into a sales contract dated 01.11.2011 with first defendant for supply of approximately 150 MTs plus or minus 10% remelted lead ingots in six containers which are 20 feet tall, at the rate of 1800 US Dollars per metric tonne.
(c) 150 MTs plus or minus 10% remelted lead ingots (hereinafter referred to as 'suit consignment' for the sake of clarity) was shipped by first defendant in 5 containers under a Bill of Lading dated 27.12.2011 and one container under a Bill of Lading dated 17.01.2012 (six containers in all). Suit http://www.judis.nic.in consignment was shipped by first defendant Shipper from Jebel Ali Port in Dubai, United Arab Emirates to Chennai, India. This Commercial Division is informed that Defendants 2, 3, 4 and 5 belong to a Group of Companies, which goes by the name MSC Group of Companies. To be noted, MSC stands for 'Mediterranean Shipping Company'.
(m) In response to the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for Carrier, learned counsel for plaintiff pointed out that the Carrier issuing bills of lading, necessarily, is issuing a document to the effect that suit consignment, i.e., Remelted Lead Ingots weighing 150 MTs plus or minus 10% is being carried and therefore, the Carrier cannot wash its hands off. This Commercial Division has already referred to the bills of lading as well as the principle in this regard qua liability of the carrier in terms of the contract of carriage and has found that relevant details with regard to suit consignment have been given by first defendant shipper and not by the carrier.
(b) It is for the first defendant to come before this Court and establish that it had actually loaded Remelted lead ingots and not aluminium metal drums. Very importantly, the payment for the said consignment has been made by plaintiff to first defendant. First defendant having received the entire sale consideration for suit consignment has bounden duty to come before this court and establish that it has discharged all its legal obligations by loading in the Load port the entire suit consignment, i.e., Remelted lead http://www.judis.nic.in ingots, for which it has received full consideration. First defendant has not chosen to do that. Merely because first defendant has not chosen to do that, it may not be appropriate to mulct the carrier with liability, particularly when the legal position emerges clearly that the contract of carriage in the instant case is such that the carrier cannot be held liable after having handed over the containers with seals intact condition, vide EIRs which have been referred to supra. To be noted, the decision that there shall be a decree against first defendant is not merely on the ground that first defendant has been set ex parte, but it is on the grounds which have been alluded to supra in the summary judgment, as in the considered opinion of this Commercial Division, a careful analysis of suit file placed before this Commercial Division, reveals that first defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim and therefore, this summary judgment in the light of the memo of plaintiff which is treated as an application for summary judgment by plaintiff qua first defendant. In other words, the summary judgment against first defendant is not only on the ground that first defendant has been set ex parte.