Rigby J:

This matter comes before me, by consent of both parties, for the determination of a preliminary point of law raised by the defendant Corp., in its pleadings, that the plaintiff Company's claim is barred by limitation of time in that the Suit was not instituted within one Year from the date when the cause of action arose.

The plaintiffs' claim, as endorsed upon the Writ of Summons, is against the defendants as owners of the steamship or vessel "State of Madras" for damages for breach of contract and/or duty in and about the carriage of goods by sea.

Under the terms of a Bill of Lading dated the 25 December 1955, the defendants received on board their vessel "State of Madras" at the port of Madras, in India, 1,500 bags of rice for delivery to the plaintiffs at the port of Penang.

The plaintiffs claim that there was a short-delivery of 283 bags of rice.

The Bill of Lading expressly Provide that it is made subject to the Indian Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925, and the Schedule thereto That Act conforms with and gives effect to the principles recognised and accepted at the International Conference 'on Maritime Law held in 1922 for the unification of certain rules of law relating to bills of jading. Those principles are known as the "Hague Rules". Article III r. 6 of the Schedule to that Act relates to the procedure to be followed by the shipper or receiver in cases where there is a claim for loss or damage to the goods. It further provides that:

In any event the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after deliver Of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered.

Identical provisions are to be found in the English Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1924, and the Malayan Carriage of Goods by Sea Ordinance, 1950.

In addition to the express reference in the Bill of Lading to the application thereto of the Indian Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, and the Schedule, to the contract, Cl. 22 of the Bill) of Lading repeats in identical terms the provision contained in Article III r. 6 quoted above.

The relevant dates for consideration are:

25 December 55 - - - - The Bill of Lading was signed;

1 January 56 - - - - The due delivery date;

23 November 57 - - - - Issue of the Writ of Summons.

It is not disputed that proceedings were instituted more than a year after the goods had been delivered. The plaintiffs, however, by their pleadings seek to rely on the contents of a letter dated 5 April 1956, written to the plaintiffs by one, C X Joshi, the defendants' duly accredited agent in Penang. The letter reads as follows:

Dear Sirs,

TL. 283 Bags Rice ex "State of

Madras" - 1 January 56 - Shortlanded.

With reference to your letter of third ultimo in respect of your above short-landed, we would confirm that the said 283 bags were actually short-landed.

We shall therefore be glad to entertain your claim on the above and shall be glad if you will kindly forward us your our bill in triplicate together with your Supplier's Invoice also in triplicate in support of same.

Yours faithfully,

(Signed) C K Joshi,

Sub-Agent,

Eastern Shipping Corp. Ltd."

On 9 May 1956, the agent again wrote to the plaintiffs in the following terms:-

Dear Sirs,

Your Claim on 283 Bags Rice

ex 'State of Madras" arrd.

1 and 11 January 1956.

With reference to your claim on the above we shall be glad if you will kindly furnish us with the Penang Port Commission's Delivery Note of all quantity being delivered to you ex their Godown as these are required by our Bombay Principal to cheek up with the Tally Note of the Port Commission.

Your early compliance will be much appreciated.

Thanking you.

Yours faithfully,

(Signed) C K Joshi,

Sub-Agent,

Eastern Shipping Corp. Ltd.

Thereafter, the plaintiffs apparently communicated direct with the defendant Corp. in India and received from them two letters dated the 22 June and first August respectiv