JUDGMENT :

Prayer: This Application is filed under Order 14, Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C.-

(a) Why the above Application should not be treated as urgent?

(b) Why this Hon’ble Court should not be pleased to reject the Plaint in the above Suit.

1. The Suit is filed for recovery of money.

2. The brief facts of the case as stated in the Plaint is that the 1st Plaintiff is engaged in the business of Shipping Line/Carrier, Shipping containers/cargo around the world. It carries on business in India through the 2nd Plaintiff as its Agent. The 2nd Plaintiff is responsible for filing Import General Manifest (IGM) for the Customs Departments prior to arrival of the containers/cargo shipped by the 1st Plaintiff into Chennai Port. In the course of their business, 1st Plaintiff shipped 10 containers stuffed with cargo which were entrusted to them from the Port of Shanghai, China to Port of Chennai India, vide 8 Master Ocean Bills of Lading. The 1st Defendant is the Consignee for all the above Master Ocean Bills of Lading. In respect of the Master Ocean Bills of Lading, M/s. Link Fast Logistics Company Limited, a Freight Forwarding Company is the counterpart of the 1st Defendant in China. House Bills of Lading (HBL) was issued by M/s. Fast Logistics Company Limited and the Plaintiff is not privity to this document. It is between the House Bills of Lading issuer and their customer. The Master Bill of Lading in this instant case issued by the 1st Plaintiff/Carrier, wherein, the 1st Defendant is the Consignee/notify party of the consignment and therefore, as per the terms of the Contract, the 1st Defendant is liable to the Carrier/Plaintiff for all conditions of the Master Bills of Lading as Merchant of the Shipped consignment. The vessels carrying the 10 containers of goods arrived at Chennai Port on 27.6.2017, 4.7.2017 and 11.7.2017 and discharged the containers. Prior to the arrival of the containers in India, the 1st Defendant being the Consignee instructed the 2nd Plaintiff through e-Mail to file the Import General Manifest (IGM) in the name of 2nd Defendant on the HBL in 3 cases and for the rest in the name of the 1st Defendant. The 1st Defendant also nominated the 4th Defendant as Container Freight Station (CFS). As per instruction of the 1st Defendant, 2nd Defendant filed Import General Manifest (IGM) on 25.6.2017, 4.7.2017 & 11.7.2017 in respect of the 10 containers manifesting the name of the 2nd Defendant in respect of 3 MBL and in the name of the 1st Defendant in respect of remaining 5 MBL. On discharge of the containers, the 3rd Defendant as the C&F agent of the 2n Defendant arranged for the movement of the 10 containers to the 4th Defendant (Container Freight Station). In case of House Bill of Lading is involved, the entity to whom the HBL is surrendered would issue delivery order in the name of the Carrier so that, the Carrier could collect the Import charges from the Consignee and issue Delivery Order to the Consignee named in the House Bill of Lading. In the instant case, the 2nd Defendant ought to have surrendered HBL to the 1st Defendant and 1st Defendant should have issued delivery order in the name of the Plaintiff for the 3 HBL. This was not done by the Defendants. The 4th Defendant, who is the custodian of the imported cargo is well aware that the containers cannot be released to the Consignee named in the HBL i.e., the 2nd Defendant unless the 2nd Defendant obtains 'Delivery Order' from the 2nd Plaintiff and surrenders the same before the 4th Defendant. Floating the procedures, the 4th Respondent was permitted to take delivery of the cargo by the 2nd Respondent, without the Delivery Order issued by the 2nd Plaintiff.

3. The Plaintiff raised “Proforma Invoice” on the 1st Defendant for the Container detention charges and terminal handling charges for total sum of Rs.2,96,471. On receipt of Proforma Invoice, the 1st Defendant instructed the Plaintiff to arrange the Invoice in the name of the