P. CHAKRAVARTTI, C. J.

( 1 ) WE have had some difficulty in following the appellant's argument in this appeal, because it did not conform too closely to what appeals to have been urged in the Court below, nor was its rather expanded end quite an expected sequel to the somewhat slender beginning. Nevertheless, we think we are now in possession of what exactly the appellant wishes to say.

( 2 ) THE appellant is a private limited company, formed under the Companies Act of 1956, to take over the assets and liabilities of another company as also its outstanding contracts. It appears that some time ago the predecessor company obtained a lease of a considerable area of forest land in the North Andamans with a view to exploiting its timber. Andaman timber has hardly any local market and it, therefore, became necessary for the company to secure some means of transport for bringing the timber over to the mainland. For that purpose it chartered from time to time sea-going vessels. One such vessel was the "eastern Venture", owned by Newland Steamship Co. Ltd. of Hongkong, which the predecessor company hired by a charter-party executed in London on 25-8-1954. The Charter-party was in the form of a Uniform Time Charter. The period covered by it was six months, with an option of another three months for the charter, but it appears that since the expiry of the original term, the charter-party has been renewed or its terms extended from time to time. Although the vessel appears to have changed hands at least twice and the period of the original charter-party also expired, as I have just stated, long ago, it is not disputed that terms and conditions of the deed of the 25-8-1954, have continued to be in force with one slight modification to which I shall presently refer.

( 3 ) WE are concerned in this case only with the terms as to the payment of the hire. Clause 6 of the charter-party provided that the charterers were to pay as hire 16s. per ton on the vessel's dead weight of 5250 tons per 30 days. This payment of hire was to be made without discount every 30 days in advance and, according to Clause 6, it was to be made in cash in Calcutta. Somewhat inconsistently, the charter-party came to contain another provision in Clause 26 which said that the hire in accordance with Clause 6 was to be paid by telegraphic transfer to London. By an addendum inserted on 5-9-1955, the provision as to payment of the hire was again modified and it was agreed that payment would be made in cash in London or Hongkong.

( 4 ) THE charter-party contained another provision in Clause 14 and it is with that provision that we are principally concerned in this case. Clause 14 read as follows:"the Charterers or their Agents to advance to the Master, if required, necessary funds for ordinary disbursements for the vessel's account at any port, charging only interest at 6 per cent. , P. A. , such advances to be deducted from hire. "the only other provision to which I need refer is Clause 25 which provided that the owners were to pay a commission of 3 per cent. , to Clegg, Cruickshank and Co. Ltd. , Calcutta, as also some commission and brokerage to two other parties, apparently in London.

( 5 ) THE vessel was to be employed for the carriage of lawful merchandise only between good and safe ports or places. In the main, it appears to have plied between Calcutta and the North Andamans. In order to be allowed to leave the Calcutta port, it required a Port Clearance Certificate and in order that a Port Clearance Certificate could be obtained from the Customs authorities, it was necessary to produce before them an Income-tax Clearance Certificate. It appears that Clegg, Cruickshank and Co. Ltd. , who were the local agents of the owners, and thereafter the appellant company itself, undertook to the Income-tax authorities to pay any income-tax for which the owners might be liable on their freight earnings. Apparently on the faith of that guarantee, the Income-tax Officer went on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document