Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. All the findings have been attacked in appeal by the plaintiff Bank.

12. The substantial question is about the bar of limitation.

13. As noted earlier, the defendant rested his case on Article 3 of Schedule I to the Limitation Act, 1963. The plaintiff maintained that the relevant Article is Article 70 which stipulated a period of 3 years from the date of refusal by the depositee to return the goods. Admittedly, reckoned that way, the suit is well within time. The crucial question therefore, is whether a relationship of depositor -- depositees or one of bailment, could be posited in the circumstances. If a bailment is established on the evidence and materials produced before the Court, the suit would not be hit by the limitation bar. Article 4 was also pleaded on the alternative.

JO. Even while understanding and interpreting this specific statutory provision, it is useful to have a historical background of the development of the related law. Law, which is so close to life, has many things to pick up from the vivacity and diversity of experiences.

31. The antiquity of bailment and its having remained "a fragmented subject" are noteworthy features. "Its development has been sporadic and ill co-ordinated". (See Palmer on Bailment, Page 1). Palmer adopts the view "that a bailment comes into being whenever one person is knowingly and willingly in possession of goods which belong to another." That there has been expansion of the concept of bailment in recent years, is demonstrated by the author by reference to decided cases, including Harding v. Commr. of Inland Revenue, (1977) 1 NZLR 337.

32. One doctrine, the doctrine of attorn-ment, as associated with bailment, has been noted with reference to the passage in the book "Possession in the Common Law" by Pollock and Wright (1888). An apt passage in the book reads;

"A bailment may arise without any change of physical possession, as for instance where a person is bailee from one person, he may become the bailee of another by attornment, i.e. by agreeing to hold under him,...."(Page 134)

33. Commercial transactions, by their very nature, are complex in character. An identical event can generate different legal relations. That is so in relation to bailment also. In the present case, the conflicting I concept as presented by the authorities --about the bailment on the one hand and about agency on the other -- is an understandable reflection of this legal complication. The legal preposition is thus propounded :

50. In the light of the above discussion, the existence of a contract of bailment and the extent of the contractual liability for 140 tonnes are clearly established.

51. With the above finding fastening a liability on the part of the 1st defendant, it becomes necessary to examine the plea of limitation put forward by the 1 st defendant to have an escape route.

52. In a case where the relationship of bailment (or of a depositor and depositee) is established between the plaintiff Bank and the 1st defendant, the starting point of the limitation is only when there is a refusal of the 1st defendant to deliver the goods when demanded in that behalf by the plaintiff-Bank. That has arisen only under Ext. A80 dated 23-2-1980, when the 1st defendant refused to comply with the request of the plaintiff for the return of the goods. This facet of the cause of action has been specifically pleaded in the plaint. That plea is fully justified in the light of the facts and circumstances established. If the case is one of bailment, Article 70 will doubtless apply. That being the special article in relation to bailment, other articles including Article 3 or 4 referred to by the Court below will not have any application. In view of our specific finding about the existence of the relationship of bailor and bailee Article 70 is immediately attracted. Thereunder the cause of action starts only from the date of refusal after demand. That refusal was only on 23-2-1980. The suit filed on 31-1-1981 is therefore well within time. We may also indicate that even if Article, 4 -- relating to a suit by a principal against an agent for neglect or misconduct -- is relevant and applicable, even then the suit is not hit by the bar of limitation. The emphasis on the words 'neglect' or 'misconduct', should not be missed. That posits a knowledge on the part of the plaintiff about the neglect or misconduct on the part of the bailee. Mere missing of the goods would not result in an automatic finding of neglect or misconduct. More materials are necessary for any authority to come to a bona fide and proper finding about neglect or misconduct. The letter Ext. A83 expressing disability to continue to hold the goods would not by itself constitute any foundation for a conclusion that there was neglect or misconduct. We are also of the view that Exts. A83 and A84 would not be construed as documents terminating the agency. Expression of a difficulty is not the same thing as an unambiguous pronouncement of termination of the agency. Viewed from any angle, the plea of limitation is not sustainable. The suit is well within the prescribed time. The finding of the Court below that the suit is barred by limitation is wholly erroneous and has to be vacated. We do so.