The statutory period of one year under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925 cannot be extended and there is a total extinction of liability after the expiry of the period of one year.

( 1 ) THIS is an application by the Shipping Corporation of India Limited, the defendant in the above suit for an order that the above suit be dismissed.

( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that it appears from the plaint that the cause of action of the plaintiff is based on non-delivery and/or short landing of 28 pieces of tin-ingots stated to have been carried by the vessel, M. V. Vishava Madhuri (hereinafter called as the said vessel) under the Bill of Lading No. S/cal/5 dt. Jan. 7, 1984. According to the plaintiff, the said vessel arrived at the Port of Calcutta on Jan. 27, 1984 and that a Steamer Survey was conducted on Feb. 3, 1984 and upon such survey a quantity of 28 pieces of tin-ingots was found short.

( 3 ) IT is the further case in the plaint that the Calcutta Port Trust has issued a short landing certificate in the prescribed form on May 7, 1984 certifying that the 28 pieces of tin-ingots were short landed.

( 4 ) THE said vessel on that particular voyage sailed away from the Port of Calcutta on 28th Feb. , 1984 after discharging all her cargo. Under Act. III, R. 6 of the Hague Rules which is statutorily recognised in India by the appropriate legislation known as Indian Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925, the vessel is discharged from all its liabilities if no suit is filed within one year of the date when the goods were delivered or should have been delivered. In case of alleged short landing and/or short delivery, the time of one year, as judicially determined, is to be computed from the date when the vessel carrying the cargo stated to have been short landed, sails away from the Port on that particular voyage.

( 5 ) IT is the contention of the petitioner that the suit has been filed beyond one year of the date when the goods were delivered or should have been delivered. It is not in dispute as appears from the plaint that the suit was filed beyond one year of the date when the goods were delivered or should have been delivered but in para 13 of the plaint the plaintiff has stated as follows :-"the time limit of 12 months has been duly extended by 6 months by the defendant with effect from Jan. 27, 1985 vide Endorsement in writing dt. Jan. 24, 1985 made on the copy letter dt. 24th January 1985 of the plaintiff claiming such extension. In the premises, the defendant is not discharged from its liability to pay the said sum of Rs. 2,32,846. 10p. to the plaintiff for reasons stated above. "on the averment of the plaint itself it is admitted that the suit was filed beyond one year of the statutory period but only question is whether such time statutorily fixed can be extended as pleaded in para 13 of the plaint and what is the effect of Art. III of R. 6 of the Indian Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925. The Art. III of R. 6 provides as follows :-"unless notice of loss or damage and the general nature of such loss or damage be given in writing to the carrier or his agent at the port of discharge before or at the time of removal of the goods into the custody of the person entitled to delivery thereof under the contract of carriage, or, if the loss or damage be not apparent, within three days, such removal shall be prima facie evidence of the delivery by the carrier of the goods as described in the bill of lading. "

( 6 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that Art. III, R. 6 actually is not a rule of limitation but it imposes a time limit of one year within which the suit has to be instituted and in default of which there will be a total extinction of liabilities. In fact the words used also in that article clearly states that in any event the carrier shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless the suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered. The learned Counsel submits that in view of the express provision in the statute there is total extinction of liability and there is no scop