The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed period of limitation for filing suits under the Limitation Act, 1963.

1. By this order the Court decides one of the preliminary issues framed by the Court on 20th November, 2012 which is whether the suit is barred by limitation.

2. The brief facts are that M/s. Kavitra Exports Pvt. Ltd., the Plaintiff, has filed the above suit against M/s. WSA Lines (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. (Defendant No. 1), M/s. Banwait Brothers Inc. (Defendant No. 2), M/s. Royal Bank of Canada (Defendant No.3) and Standard Chartered Bank (Defendant No. 4) for recovery of a sum of Rs. 40, 38, 074 together with pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per annum.

3. The Plaintiff is stated to be in the business of export of readymade garments. Defendant No. 1 is engaged in the business of sea transport. It is stated that Defendant No. 2, the buyer in Canada, approached the Plaintiff with a request to supply readymade garments. Accepting the request, the Plaintiff prepared the products to the satisfaction of Defendant No. 2 and booked the shipment to Canada on full container load (‘FCL’) basis under a bill of lading (‘B/L’) dated 27th March 2006 through Defendant No. 1. The shipment was booked as O/F and IHC Freight Collect (collect at destination) basis. The freight was payable at the Consignee’s (Defendant No. 3) destination. Defendant No. 4 was the corresponding bank through whom payment was to be received by the Plaintiff.

4. According to the Plaintiff, Defendant No. 1 informed it that the shipment had been sent by a container on 14th April 2006. However, Defendant No. 3 denied delivery of the container. According to the Plaintiff, when it contacted Defendant No. 1 it learnt that the shipment was not sent on FCL basis but was sent sometime in May, 2006 on less container load (‘LCL’) basis and was released by release note dated 23rd May, 2006 by Defendant No. 1. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant No. 1 issued a false/bogus certificate dated 12th May, 2006 showing a wrong container number. Further Defendant No. 1 charged from Defendant No. 2 US$ 4235.14 instead of US$ 2984 by invoice dated 11th May, 2006 whereas the agreed rate for delivery on FCL basis was US$ 2984. It is stated that when the consignment reached Defendant No. 3 (consignee) and was delivered to Defendant No. 2, neither of them raised any objections as to the quality or the price of the goods. It is stated that after receiving the consignment, Defendant No. 2 started raising an issue on the pricing of the goods. It pressurised the Plaintiff to agree to a lower price. Reference is made to communications dated 17th August, 19th October and 24th November, 2006. The Plaintiff on its part addressed communications dated 15th February, and 1st December, 2006. It is stated that despite the Plaintiff keeping in touch with Defendants 3 and 4, they refused to collect Canadian $ 57333.55 from Defendant No. 2. Ultimately, the Plaintiff sent a communication dated 24th November, 2008 to Defendants 2 and 3 asking to clear the aforesaid dues together with interest from 11th May, 2006. A reply dated 5th January, 2009 was sent by Defendant No. 2 alleging that the goods supplied were not as per specifications. It is contended by the Plaintiff that Defendant No. 2 has taken a false stand and that the fault also lies with Defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 3 is alleged to have wrongly withheld the balance payment as well. Accordingly, it is claimed that all the Defendants jointly and severally have committed breach of their obligations resulting in loss being suffered by the Plaintiff to the tune of Rs. 40, 04, 175 computed at the rate of Rs. 45 per Canadian dollar (market rate as on 10th January, 2011) along with interest @ 12% per annum from 11th July, 2006 till 10th January, 2007. The sum claimed in the suit is Rs. 40,38,074.

5. In the written statement filed by Defendants 1, 2 and 4 a preliminary objection is taken as to limitation. It is submitted by Mr. Jeevesh Nagrath, learned counsel appearing for Defendant No. 1 that under Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Article 55 of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document