The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of legal provisions related to authority, jurisdiction, limitation, sub-agency, negligence, and rate of interest in civil suits.

( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the Judgment and Decree in Civil Suit No. 148-B/95 passed by IX Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, in the case of M. P. Electricity Board v. Nav Bharat Corporation, Bombay, the defendant appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 96 of the CPC.

( 2 ) IT is not in dispute that appellant was duly authorized agent of the respondent to unload the goods imported by the plaintiff/respondent. The appellant was also authorized to send the goods to different places as directed by the plaintiff/respondent. It is also admitted that the appellant was to unload the goods at Port Bombay and other ports like Kandla, Calcutta, Madras and Cochin also.

( 3 ) THE case of the plaintiff in substance is as under:as per the directions of the plaintiff/non-applicant, the defendant/appellant out of 781. 0706 MT of steel material imported through vessel Jiao Chung, 119 MT material was not delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff due to his gross negligence and wilful misconduct. A part of it was wrongfully withheld and misappropriated by the defendants agent M/s Gopal and Kumar Pvt. Ltd. , Calcutta and the other part of 47 bundles could not be delivered to the plaintiff due to the wilful negligence of the defendant. It was also pleaded that the said M/s Gopal and Kumar Pvt. Ltd. had left over 112 MT. Steel consignment of the plaintiff unclaimed in the port and held another 43 MT. steel in their godowns for non-payment of the dues. That the defendant did not give funds to clear the consignment by M/s Gopal and Kumar Pvt. Ltd. Out of 47 bundles of steel 40 were auctioned by the port authorities and seven bundles could not be auctioned. The plaintiff has given details of claim for damages as per Paragraph 27.

( 4 ) THE defendant has denied the claim of the plaintiff and stated that it was plaintiff who was negligent in the matter and did not co-operated to clear the steel material from Calcutta Port. Since the defendant had no authority to unload steel from Calcutta port he had to appoint M/s Gopal and Kumar Pvt. Ltd. as their sub agent who neglected in unloading the goods. That the plaintiff has directly dealt with the sub agent, hence, there was an implied delegation, consent and implied authority to the sub agent to deal on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendant has further alleged that in violation of Sections 61-62 of the Major Port Trust Act the authorities without intimating to the defendant or/and the plaintiff sold few bundles by way of auction. Hence, the defendant has filed a Civil Suit in High Court of Calcutta after giving notice on 23rd September, 1985 which is yet pending. The defendant has denied the claim of the plaintiff. The defendant has raised three additional grounds relating to territorial jurisdiction, limitation and authority of the person signing and verifying the plaint.

( 5 ) IN appeal the judgment and decree of the Trial Court has been challenged on the ground that the Trial Court committed error of law and fact in decreeing the suit. ( 6 ) THE questions arising in the case are decided under separate heads: (A) whether the plaint is duly signed and verified? the first point to be decided is whether the officer in charge had authority to sign the plaint and verify the pleadings or not. The plaintiff has pleaded that as per the provisions of Section 5 read with Section 12 of the Indian Electricity Supply Act, 1948 the officer in charge V. K. Shukla, Divisional Engineer was appointed to sign and verify the plaint and pleadings. This fact has not been specifically denied by the defendant in his written statement. What the defendant says is no authority in writing has been filed by the plaintiff. But that has not been challenged in the statement of Shri V. K. Shukla (P. W. 1 ). There is no reason to disbelieve the version of Shri V. K. Shukla that he had authority to do so. In Sarjuprasad v. Badriprasad AIR 1939 Nag. 242, All India Reporter v. Ramchandra; and in Netram v. Bhagwan AIR 1941 Nag. 159, it

Click Here to Read the rest of this document