The suit was declared time-barred under the Hague Rules and the Indian Limitation Act, as it was not filed within the one-year limitation period from the date of non-delivery of goods.

1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel on 21/3/1998 below Exhibit-16 in Special Civil Suit No.61/95, rejecting the Plaint under O.7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 since the claim made by the appellants-plaintiffs for the recovery of Rs.15,67,230.72/- with future interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum from respondents was/is time-barred.

2. Special Civil Suit No.61/95 has been filed by the appellants on 20/6/1995 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel for the recovery of an amount of Rs.15,67,230.72 ps. and further interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum on Rs. 3,89,760/- from the date of the filing of the suit till realisation. The appellants carry on business as manufacturers of Purified Therpthlic Acid (P.T.A.) . One of the essential ingredients required by the appellant for the manufacturer of P. T. A. is Hydrobromic Acid. In August 1993, the appellants had placed an order for the purchase of a total quantity of 32.48 metric tons of Hydrobromic Acid with one M/s. First Intercontinental corporation, Irving, Texas 7506, U.S.A. for a total price of US$ 24360. In view of the said order, the said M/s. First Intercontinental Corporation shipped two container-load of Hydrobromic Acid containing 112 drums amounting to total 32.48 metric tons of Hydrobrimic Acid through respondent no.1 and /or ship line of respondent No.1 and/or the vessel of respondent no. 1. According to the appellants, the aforesaid two containers were shipped and carried on respondent No.1's vessel "S.S. Orient Triump". Respondent No.1 issued Bill of Lading dated 16th July 1993 and accordingly respondent assured the responsibility and liability of the said delivery of the aforesaid two containers to the appellants. The appellants have paid a sum of US $ 24360 to M/s. First International Corporation, being the purchase price of the said Hydrobromic Acid. According to the appellants, it was the responsibility and duty of the respondents to prepare Import General Manifest (IGM) correctly and to ensure that all the relevant details pertaining to the cargo and the containers were properly stated in their IGM. According to the appellants, the said vessel S.S.Orient Trump carrying the said two containers containing Hydrobromic Acid arrived at Nhava-Sheva port on 24/08/1993. However, as the IGM prepared by the Respondents did not correctly state the details pertaining to the containers, the said containers were attached by the Customs Department since there was a manifest violation of the provisions of Customs Act. It is alleged that the IGM did not disciose two containers, but it only disclosed one container and therefore, the containers were seized. The Appellants have stated that the appellants learnt about the fact of the containers being seized by the Customs Authorities, and therefore, on 14th September 1993 and 9th October 1993, the appellants requested the respondents to take immediate steps in clearance of the said two containers from the custody of the Customs Authorities and informed the Respondents that the delay in clearance would result in production loss to the appellants for which the Respondents would be held responsible and liable. The Appellants further have stated that with considerable efforts on the part of the appellants and clearing agents, one container of Hydrobromic Acid was released by the Customs Authorities on 31/12/1993. However, the Customs Authorities did not release the second container of Hydrobromic Acid. The Customs Authorities initiated proceeding for confiscation