CHENNAKESAV REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE Far Eastern Steamship Company, also known as Fesco Lines, vladivostok, carrying on business at Kakinada through their agents M/s D. S. Narayana and Company, Kakinada, the defendants in the suit O. S. No. 267 of 1972 oa the hle of the Court of the Subordrnate Judge, Kakinada, are the petitioner. The first plaintiff in the suit are Koika Trading Company Ltd. , osaka, Japan and second and third plaintiffs are New India Assurance company Limited, Bombay and Aspinwall and Company Limited, Cochin and Kakinada. The defendants are a steamship company incorporated in u. S. S. R. and carry on business as common carriers by sea and carry forward goods inter alia from ports in India to Japan. The defendants are the owners and/or charters of the ship, "m. Koly Mygotin", hereinafter referred to as the ship at all material times. The first plaintiffs are a Limited Company incorporated in Japan and carry on business as importers and exporters having their head office at Osaka, Japan. The plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 58,8o6-33 ps. being the value of 3s9 bales of palmyrah fibre delivered by the defendants in a rotten condition. The case of the plaintiffs briefly stated is: that in February, 1971 the third plaintiffs booked 370 bales of palmyrah fibre from Kakinada to Kobe and delivered the consignment in a securely and properly packed condition to M/s D. S. Narayana and Company for carriage from Kakinada to Kobe by the Ship, that the defendants - agents issued receipts in the form of bills of of lading lor and on behalf of the defendants Nos. KK-14, KK-15 and kk-16 dated 27-2-1971 marked as Exs. A-1 to A-3 for the said consignments acknowledging that the said consignments were received on board to ship in good order and condition, that the Ship arrived with the goods at kobe on or about 9-4-1971 and delivered the consignment to the first plaintiffs and that after survey it was found that the three consignments consisting of 350 bales of palmyrah fibre were in a damaged and rotten condition due to the negligence of the defendants, for which the defendants were liable to make good the loss. The first plaintiffs sent a preliminary notice of claim to M/s Kumagai kaum Karsha Limited, Kobe, the agents of the defendants at Kobe on 7-5-71. But the claim was repudiated by the Agents of the defendants by their reply dated 9-7-1971 stating inter alia that the damages were probably caused by the stress of bao weather the ship encountered in the voyage. A copy of the marine Protest Wed at Tokyo, Japan by the Master of the ship was also sent. Thereafter the plaintiffs submitted their claim through their agents M/s V. L. N. C. Narichaura (P) Ltd. , Bombay to the defendants on 2-2-1972 and suggested amrcable settlement of the claim and further slated that since the claim would attract limitation the claim may be settled immediately. By their cable dated 28-2-1972, the claims agents ot the Plaintiffs suggested expeditious settlement and extension of time for six months with effect from 1-4-1972. As no cable was received from the defendants, they sent another cable on 14-3-1972 and later on 16-3-1972 to expedite the reply failing whict the plaintiffs would hie a suit. The defendants then replied by their cabld dated 16-3-1972 extending time by six months. Later the defendants referred the claim to their agents M/s D. B. Madan and Co. , Madras, who by their letter dated 27-5-1972 repudiated the claim. The plaintiffs thereafter filed the suit. The main defence of the defendants in the suit was that the court a kakinada had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits in view of clauses 26 and 27 of the conditions of bills of lading. According to the defendants, as the said clauses, all claims and disputes arising under and in connection wis the bill of lading shall be judged in the USSR and shall be determined accuding to the Merchant Shipping Code of the USSR and the above saw clauses in the bill

Click Here to Read the rest of this document