JUDGMENT - F.I. REBELLO, J.:---Plaintiffs are a registered partnership firm who have filed the present suit against defendant No. 1 as the shipping agent of the defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 2 is the shipping company incorporated under the laws of Norway having its office c/o. Sirachan Shipping Company, 390, World Trade Center, Norfolk, Virginia 23510, U.S.A. Defendant Nos. 2 are carrier of goods. On 30th August, 1990 plaintiffs sent six rolls of carpets for Am Pak Trading Company in container No. TRIU 403005-8 vide Bill of Lading No. HOLU 0404 ROM NF 010 per vessel "HOEGH DRAKE" Trading Co. to U.S.A. The port of loading was at Bombay and the port of discharge was Norfolk. The goods were to be exported by the plaintiff through the agent of defendant No. 2 i.e. the first defendant. The consignment was to reach its destination on 27-9-1990 and was to be cleared at Norfolk by clearing agents of consignee namely M/s. Cavilior Shipping Co. Inc. The clearing agents were advised that the cargo would arrive not by vessel "Hoegh Drake" but by vessel "Hoegh Dyke" on 5-11-1990. The cargo failed to arrived by the vessel "Hoegh Dyke" on 5-11-1990. Plaintiff received a letter dated 24-6-1991 from M/s. Oriental Rug Warehouse, a division of M/s. Am Pak Trading Company informing the plaintiffs that the said shipment has been lost somewhere and that the shipping company, i.e. defendant No. 2 has not been able to locate the said cargo. Defendant No. 1 also wrote to the plaintiffs by their letter dated 5th July, 1991 that six rolls of carpets for Am Pak Trading Company did not out turn from the said container and also that they have not been able to locate the cargo till that date. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the consignee lodged their claim with the shipping company for the loss of cargo at destination. The claim was not accepted by the shipping company vide their letter dated May 20, 1991. Plaintiffs thereafter preferred claim with defendant No. 1 by letter dated 19th July, 1991. In the said letter the plaintiffs specifically stated that the defendant No. 1 will also remain responsible for any claim by M/s. Am Pak Trading Company for losses or damages suffered by them on account of non-receipt of the said cargo. It is their further case that the consignee lodged a claim with plaintiff by letter of 25th July, 1991 for the loss of profit, loss of prestige suffered by them by non-supply of the said goods to them. The case of the plaintiff is that as the defendant has neglected to pay the said claim of the plaintiffs for compensation for loss of cargo, defendants are jointly and severally liable for the losses. The claims have been quantified in the particulars of claim. In paragraph 12, it is averred that the claim can be enforced by action in rem against the carrier "Hoegh Drake" and in personam against defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiffs case is that the office of the defendant No. 2 is situated at Bombay within the jurisdiction of this Court in its admiralty and vice admiralty jurisdiction. It is then averred that the suit is within limitation as the goods were shipped on 30-8-1990. The plaintiffs lodged their claim with defendants on 19-7-1991 i.e. within one year of the shipment of the said consignment. The suit it is contended is filed within three years of the cause of action.

2. Defendants filed their joint written statement. It was firstly contended that the suit was not maintainable under the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court. The suit it is contended, has been filed under the provisions of section 6 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861. The claim of the plaintiff in the suit is for alleged loss of consignment which was on the vessel m.v. Hoegh Drake" at Bombay for carriage to the Port of Norfolk. The claim therefore, is not claimed in respect of goods coming into any port in India as envisaged by section 6 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861. Without prejudice it is contended that the suit is barred by limitation. The consig

Click Here to Read the rest of this document