MOHTAANOOPV., J.:-This Notice of Motion has been taken out by the applicants, original defendant Nos. 3 & 4 and prayed as under :-

Clause (a)-That the above suit be dismissed for want of jurisdiction against the third and fourth Defendants. Clause (b)-In the alternative the suit be dismissed as the same is barred by law of limitation.

2. By an order dated 24th January, 2006 in Chamber Summons No. 1391 of 2005 taken out by defendant Nos. 3 & 4 for revocation of leave granted by an order dated 24-04-2004 under Clause XII of Letters Patent was dismissed and observed as under:

“5) Firstly according to defendant No.3 & 4 themselves there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 3 and 4 based on this bill of lading. In the circumstances, the above clause regarding jurisdiction cannot operate between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 3/Defendant No.4.”

“7) The plaintiffs case inter alia is that false boarding dates had been deliberately put on the bill of lading issued by defendant No. 3 and 5 with respect to the said consignment to avoid their obligations to the plaintiff. As a result thereof, according to them, they were unable to negotiate a letter of credit. The buyers in China refused to make payment under the letter of credit as the date of the shipment was beyond the date specified in the letter of credit. With the merits of this contention, I am not conned at this stage. What is relevant is that the Plaintiff has expressly pleaded that the dates were falsely put on the bill of lading and that the defendants jointly and severally connived in perpetrating the fraud and had also committed breach of trust.”

3. In view of this and as the submission are made in respect of prayer clause (b) only, the matter proceeded accordingly.

4. The plaintiff and respondents have filed the present suit against defendants, basically for the damages on account of late delivery of the goods and also for additional losses incurred by the plaintiff because of revocation of contracts with the Chinese buyer. The respondents have raised claims against respective defendants separately as well as jointly. These prayer clauses of the plaint are as under:

a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to order and decree the Defendants jointly and severally for the sum of USD 506, 635,93 equivalent to INR 2,22,91,980/- along with interest@ 12% for the period 21st April, 2003 to 21st April 2004 amounting to USD 60,796 equivalent to INR 26,75,024/- as per particulars of claim being Exhibit. “P”.

b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to order and decree the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for the sum of USD 506,635.93 equivalent to INR 2,22,91,980/- as per particulars of claim being Exhibit “P”.

c) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to order and decree the Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 for the sum of USD 229,931.99 equivalent to INR 1,01,17,007 /-as per particulars of claim being Exhibit “P”.

d) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to order and decree the Defendant No.5 for the sum of USD 276,704,14 equivalent to INR 1,21,74,982/-as per particulars of claim being Exhibit “P”.

e) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to order and decree the Defendants for the sum of USD 50,663 equivalent to INR 22,29,172/- as per particulars of claim Exhibit “L”.

f) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to order and decree the Defendants for the sum of USD 50,000 equivalent to INR.

g) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to order and decree the Defendants for the sum of USD 25,000 equivalent to INR 11,00,000/- as per particulars of claim Exhibit “O”.

f) for such other and further relief’s as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

g) for costs of the suit.

5. The sequence of events that lead to filing of the suit are as under:

(1) “Plaintiff is a well known and reputed company incorporated in and under laws of Korea having its registered office at Seoul. The plaintiff is in the business of import and export, and deals with steel and other such related raw materials. The plaintiff company wa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document