Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Cogoport Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Strides Pharma Science Limted & Ors. - Respondents
FAO(OS) (COMM) 163 of 2023 & CM Appls. 40116 of 2023, 42083 of 2023
Decided On : 22-09-2023
Lien - Commercial Dispute - Indian Contract Act, 1872, Multimodal Transportation of Goods Act - The court discussed the exercise of lien by the appellant, the jurisdiction of the court, and the exceptional circumstances for granting interim mandatory injunction.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant/defendant No.3 withheld original documents/Bill of Lading pertaining to a consignment of life-saving medicines, leading to financial and reputational loss for the respondent No.1/plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's exercise of lien was without statutory basis and inequitable, and the respondent No.1 had the necessary locus to file the suit. The court also held that the territorial jurisdiction of the court was valid and that the exceptional circumstances warranted the grant of interim mandatory injunction.
Issues: Exercise of lien, territorial jurisdiction, locus standi of the respondent No.1, and the grant of interim mandatory injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the appellant's exercise of lien was unjustified, the respondent No.1 had the necessary locus to file the suit, the court had valid territorial jurisdiction, and the exceptional circumstances warranted the grant of interim mandatory injunction.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the interim mandatory injunction was upheld.
JUDGMENT
Neena Bansal Krishna, J. - An appeal under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 has been filed against the Order dated 28.07.2023 allowing the I.A.11644/2023 of the plaintiff directing the appellant/defendant No.3 to forthwith release all original documents/Bill of Lading pertaining to the Consignment of the respondent No.1/plaintiff to him and has also restrained the appellant from obstructing the release of Consignment in question.
2. The facts in brief are that the plaintiff Stride Pharma Science Limited (hereinafter referred to as "respondent No. 1") is a Pharmaceutical Company which engaged the services of respondent No.2/defendant No.1 on 31.03.2023 to deliver its consignment of life saving medicines on urgent basis to its clients L.N.K. International Inc. New York. In furtherance thereto respondent No.2/defendant No.1 issued House Bill of Lading (HBOL) dated 31.03.2023. Respondent No.2 in order to honour the contract, forwarded the consignment to respondent No.3/defendant No.2, a Forwarding Agent, who in turn further forwarded the consignment to the appellant/defendant No.3.
3. The complete payments relating to delivery of freight were made by the respondent No.1 to respondent No.2.The Consignment reached final destination i.e. New York on 12.06.2023, but was illegally withheld by City Freight Logistics Inc. (Delivery Partner No.1 in New York) and AJ Worldwide Logistics (Delivery Partner No.2 in New York) on specific instructions of the appellant and respondent No.4.
4. The consignment being life saving drugs were perishable in nature and had a limited shelf life and if not stored properly could lose its value/ quality completely. The total value of the consignment was USD 642,609 (i.e. about INR 5,50,09,665/- at INR 81.95 per USD).The Consignee's Broker i.e. HL Brokerage vide multiple emails inquired regarding Arrival Notice of consignments from Delivery Partner No.1 in New York, who informed on 12.04.2023 that it would share the Arrival Notice along with the Invoice on separate email as soon as they receive the surrender Bill of Lading from the Port of Origin. Further, vide email dated 08.06.2023, the Consignee's Broker followed up with Delivery Partner No.1 in New York to which it received a response that they had received specific instruction to hold the consignments from the original Consignor i.e. defendant No.4.
5. To clear the confusion, respondent No.1 vide email dated 10.06.2023 informed Consignee's broker and Delivery Partner No.1, New York that there was no hold up for the shipment from the original Transporting Agent i.e. respondent No.2 as the payments were already made by respondent No. 1/plaintiff and the consignment must be released immediately upon arrival. However, when the consignment reached New York on 12.06.2023, it was not released despite full advance payment being made by respondent No.3 (Forwarding Agent of respondent No. 2) to the appellant. Respondent No.2 vide email dated 13.06.2023 sought immediate release of consignment as payments were already made by it to the appellant.
6. Respondent No.1 on the same day, asked for specific reasons from delivery Partner No.1, New York for withholding of the consignments and was informed via email dated 14.06.2023 that there were instructions to withhold the consignment by the appellant due to non-payment of freight charges.
7. Subsequently, the possession of the goods was transferred from Delivery Partner No.1 to Delivery Partner No.2, New York i.e. AJ Worldwide Logistics.Various emails were exchanged between the parties and eventually Delivery Partner No.2 in New York apprised respondent No.1 that they would need the Bills of Lading which were in the possession of the appellant for releasing the Consignment.
8. Respondent No.1/plaintiff thereafter wrote an email dated 17.06.2023 to respondent No.4 demanding specific performance and damages in lieu of failure to handover the Consignment in accordance with the deadline which not only cause
The exercise of lien without statutory basis, the validity of territorial jurisdiction, and the exceptional circumstances for granting interim mandatory injunction.
A freight forwarding agent does not have a general lien over the goods of a consignor unless there is an express contract to that effect or the agent falls under one of the categories of persons enti....
The trial court's failure to consider the defendants' arguments led to an improper interim injunction, necessitating remand for a fresh assessment under applicable laws and regulations.
Common carriers are liable for short delivery due to negligence under the Carriers Act, and terms limiting liability may not be enforceable if inadequately notified to the other party.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the carrier was not liable for the delivery of goods without the consignee copy of 'Goods Consignments Notes' in the absence of an agreement o....
The cause of action, even in part, will confer territorial jurisdiction on the court, and a question of territorial jurisdiction should ordinarily be decided at the outset.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
