SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(Bom) 482

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD
CHINA SHIPPING DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
LANYARD FOODS LIMITED – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
G.R.MEHTA, K.G.MUNSHI, Rampal S.Tripathi, SNEHAL SHAH

D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

( 1 ) IN pursuance of a contract of affreightment dated 23rd december 1999 for a consignment of RDB palmolein Cargo, the respondent executed four letters of indemnity of 13th April 2000. Those letters were purported to have been issued by the Company jointly and severally with the State Bank of Saurashtra. For the purposes of the present proceedings, reliance has been placed by both the Counsel on the indemnity bearing No. 1308. The provisions of the indemnity contained the following request to the petitioner: "we hereby request you to order the vessel to proceed to Mangalore and give delivery of the said cargo at the port of Mangalore to delivery to the order of Lanyard Foods Ltd. No. 1119-A, Kiadb Industrial Area, Balkanpadi, mangalore 975011, India without production of the original Bills of Lading. " the request contained in the other three letters of indemnity (bearing Nos. 1065, 1066 and 1309) was similar, save and except that the Ports of delivery were referred to therein as Chennai and Karwar. Each of the documents of indemnity executed by the respondent indemnified the petitioner in the following terms: " 1. To indemnify you, your servants and agents




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top