Skip to content


The Madras Port Trust Vs. K.P.A.T. Annamalai Nadar and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCommercial
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberLetters Patent Appeal No. 90 of 1963, from judgment of Venkatadri J. in S.A. No. 1462 of 1960, D/- 1
Judge
Reported inAIR1968Mad42
ActsMadras Port Trust Act, 1905 - Sections 39(1); Indian Railways Act, 1890; Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 151, 152 and 161
AppellantThe Madras Port Trust
RespondentK.P.A.T. Annamalai Nadar and anr.
Cases ReferredIn Parsons v. New Zealand Shipping Co.
Excerpt:
madras port trust act (ii of 1905), section 39(3)--consignee ordering goods of particular mark- port trust offering to deliver goods of different mark--consignee refusing to take delivery and suing port trust for damages--liability of port trust--liable as bailee--consignee has cause of action only against port trust ; a was a clearing and forwarding agent at madras for t, a firm of merchants at sivakasi. the plaintiff, t, was the consignee of goods from tokyo, japan of certain cases of goods bearing a particular mark. on the arrival of the japanese ship at madras carrying the cargo, the plaintiff submitted his import application and the port trust authorities offered to deliver them certain cases of consigned goods but bearing different brand marks which was of an inferior variety. the..... (1) this appeal under the letters patent has been preferred, on leave granted by venkatadri j. who, in second appeal, reversing the decision of the courts below, upheld the claim of the plaintiff for a sum of rs. 3,774.31 the value of the goods not delivered.(2) the brief facts of the case, on which the rights and liabilities of the parties will have to be considered, are these: the first plaintiff is clearing and forwarding agent at madras for the second plaintiff, a firm of merchants at sivakasi and the reference hereafter as the plaintiff, will be the second plaintiff. the plaintiffs are the goods from tokyo, japan, of the red phosphorous, amorphous, bearing marks p. k. j. 1 to 10 numbers and described as ten wooden cases of kdk brand. on the arrival of the ship, s.s. azumasan maru at.....
Judgment:
(1) This appeal under the Letters Patent has been preferred, on leave granted by Venkatadri J. who, in second appeal, reversing the decision of the Courts below, upheld the claim of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 3,774.31 the value of the goods not delivered.

(2) The brief facts of the case, on which the rights and liabilities of the parties will have to be considered, are these: the first plaintiff is clearing and forwarding agent at Madras for the second plaintiff, a firm of merchants at Sivakasi and the reference hereafter as the plaintiff, will be the second plaintiff. The plaintiffs are the goods from Tokyo, Japan, of the red phosphorous, amorphous, bearing marks P. K. J. 1 to 10 numbers and described as ten wooden cases of KDK brand. On the arrival of the ship, s.s. Azumasan Maru at Madras the plaintiff submitted their import application, Ex. A-15, and the Port Trust authorities offered to deliver them ten classes of bearing Nos. 4 and 9, and 8 other cases with different numbers but all bearing brand marks J.C.I. There is evidence that J.C.I. brand is of inferior variety, KDK brand costing Rs. 3-12-0 per lb.; J.C.I. brand being priced at Rs. 3 per lb. only. One hundred and twenty cases under the main mark P.K.J. had been unloaded. There were five consignees including the plaintiffs, and four had taken delivery of goods. The plaintiffs refused to take delivery of the goods tendered as not in accordance with the bill of lading. The Port Trust authorities, the appellant before us, issued them only what is called the 'A' certificate, though the plaintiffs required of them in the circumstances a B certificate. On the evidence, it was clear that the plaintiffs were the consignees of P.K.J. 1 to 10, KDK brand. The bill of lading (Ex. A-20), the import manifest (Ex. B-5), the invoice (Ex. A-1),the insurance papers, all refer to the plaintiffs as the consignees of goods P.K.J. 1 to 10 of KDK brand made in Japan. It may also be stated that the plaintiffs had paid the customs duty as on KDK brand, and the Customs authorities would not permit them to remove cases of J.C.I. brand. There is also evidence to show that on the plaintiffs' refusal to take delivery of goods consisting upon the issue of B certificate, the steamer agents were not agreeable, when required by the Port Trust, to the issue of B certificate, as, according to them, the goods had been correctly landed. It was in those circumstances that the plaintiffs preferred the claim impleading the steamer agents also as a party defendants. The Court of first instance rejected the plaintiffs' claim, and the plaintiffs, finding that, on the facts as disclosed in the trial Court, the steamer agents would not at all be liable, did not make them parties in the further appeal by them. The stand taken by the Port Trust authorities was that they were bound to deliver the cargo only according to the main marks, in terms of which they tallied and unloaded the cargo and that they were not concerned with any particular brand of goods. In that view, on the failure of the plaintiffs to clear the according to law they sold the goods in public auction.

(3) The Court of first instance and the Court on appeal therefrom, while that the Port Trust authorities were the agents of the consignee for the purpose of taking delivery of the consignments and that their responsibility was over as soon as they were in a position to deliver to the consignee the goods as received from the ship held, that a mistake should have occurred even at the time of loading of the goods at Japan, and that, if at all, the consignor would be responsible. The Courts below also were of the view that the Port Trust need confined itself to the leading marks only and it was not necessary for the Port Trust authorities to tally the goods landed by reference to their brand. On behalf of the plaintiffs, it was contended that the bill of lading of the goods consigned to the plaintiffs as per the bill of lading being P.K.J. 1 to 10 KDK brand, the prima facie evidence as to the consignment of such goods had not been displaced. It was contended that mere fact that the Port Trust authorities were content with tallying with the main mark would not absolve them from the liability for the consignment as loaded, if their practice was not in conformity with the legal requirements and the duty imposed on the Port Trust.

(4) Now, under the Madras Port Trust Act, II of 1905, the Board, by which it is meant the Trustees of the Port of Madras appointed under the Act, are empowered to undertake the duty of receiving, removing, shifting, transporting, storing and delivering goods brought within the Board's premises and of landing, shipping or transhipping passengers and goods between vessels in the port and wharves, piers, quays or docks in possession of the Board. The power to this effect is provided in S. 39(1)(a) and (b) of the Act. Clause (3) of S. 39 is an important provision and it runs thus:

"The Board shall, if required, take charge of the goods for the purpose on performing the service and shall give a receipt in the form time to time by the Central Government.

After any goods have been taken charge of and a receipt given for them under this section, no liability for any loss or damage which may occur to them shall attach to any person to whom a receipt shall have been landed or transhipped."

Section 40 of the Act provides:

"1. The responsibility of the Board for the loss, destruction or deterioration of goods of which it has taken charge shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act and subject also in case of goods received for carriage by railway to the provision of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, be that of a bailee under Ss. 151, 152 and 161 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, omitting the word 'in absence of any special contract' in S. 152 of the last mentioned Act. Provided that, till the receipt mentioned in sub-section (3) of S. 39 is given by the Board, the goods shall be at the risk of the owner.

(2) The Board shall not be in any way responsible for loss of or damage to goods of which it has taken charge, unless the notice of such loss or damage shall have been given within one month of the date of the receipt given for the goods under sub-section (3) of Section 39."

There is no dispute before us about the practice at the Port the cargo from ship is first taken charge by the Port Trust and subsequently only the Port Trust delivers the goods to the respective consignees. But learned counsel for the Port Trust, Mr. V.V. Raghvan, contended that the view of the Courts below and the learned Judge (Venkatadri, J.) that the Port Trust was an agent of the consignee in taking delivery of the goods from the shipping company based on the decisions of this Court in Great Eastern Shipping Co., Ltd. v. Govindswami, ILR (1957) Mad 840 and Great Eastern Shipping Co., Ltd. v. Md. Samiulla Sahib and Co., , cannot be maintained, after the unreported

judgment of the Supreme Court in Trustees of the Port of Madras v. Sheik Mohamed Rowther and Co., Civil Appeal Nos. 187 to n191 of 1962, on from this Court. The two decisions of this Court are cases arising out of claim for short delivery and this Court took the view that, in view of the latter clause of sub-section (3) of S. 39 above referred to, when the goods are landed and left with the Port Trust, the legal effect was as if the shipping company had delivered the goods to the consignee, the Port Trust being the agent of the consignee for the said purpose. The appeals in the Supreme Court arose out of writ petition filed in this court, where the validity of levy of charges to be paid by the masters, owners or agents of vessels in respect of Port Trust labour requisitioned and supplied but not fully or properly utilised arose for consideration. While considering the jural relationship between the several parties in respect of carriage of goods sea, Raghubar Dayal J, delivering the judgment of the Court made the following observations:

"There is no doubt that the ship-owner is the bailee of the shipper, the consignor, and that he is responsible for the delivery of the goods to the consignee or transferee according to terms of the bill of landing. This duty, the ship-owner discharges only when he has delivered the goods to the consignee or such person who be entitled to take delivery in accordance with the endorsements on the bill of lading. Delivery to the Board is not delivery to the consignee or such person, both because the delivery is to be on the presentation of the bill of lading and because the Act contains no provision which would constitute the Board an agent of the consignee for the purpose of taking delivery of the goods."

(5) Referring to S. 39, sub-sec. (3), it is observed:

"Sub-sec. (3) of S. 39 of the Act empowers the Board to take charge of the goods for the purpose of performing certain services which do not include the taking delivery of the goods from ship-owner. It is that on the Board taking charge of the goods and giving a receipt about it to the ship-owner the master or the owner of the vessel is observed from the liability for any loss or damage which may occur to the goods which had been landed, but this provision by itself does not suffice to convert the receiving of the goods by the Boards after they had been landed by the ship owner to the Board's taking delivery of those goods on behalf of the consignee."

(6) Proceeding further his Lordship observes:

"Section 40 speaks to the responsibility of the Board for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods of which it has taken charge as a bailee under Ss. 151, 152 and 161 of the Indian Contract Act. S. 148 of the Contract Act states that a bailment is the delivery of goods by one person to another for some purpose, upon a contract that they shall, when the purpose is accomplished, be returned or otherwise disposed of according to the person delivering them. The person delivering the goods is called bailor and the person to whom they are delivered is called the bailee. It is clear, therefore, that when the Board takes charge of the goods from the ship-owner is the bailor and the Board is the bailee and the Board's responsibility for the goods thereafter is that of a bailee. The Board does not get the goods from the consignee. It cannot be bailee of the consignee. It can be the agent of the consignee only if so appointed, which is not alleged to be the case, and even if the Board be as an agent and not as a bailee."

(7) Holding that the landing of the goods by the ship-owner on the quay and placing them in charge of the Board does not amount to delivering them to consignee, even though it absolves the master of ship from further responsibility for the loss or damage to the goods the Supreme Court observes thus:

"The only reasonable conclusion in the circumstances can that the place of delivery is shifted from the side of the ship to the warehouse where the Board stores the goods, till the consignee appears to take delivery on the basis of the delivery order by the steamer agent, which is usually an endorsement on the bill of lading, and the quay be considered as part of the ship."

(8) We do not see how those observation of the Supreme court can help the Port Trust in the context of the present case. it was not argued before us that even if the consignment had been correctly landed from the ship, the consignee has no cause of action against the Port Trust for failure to deliver proper goods. The Port Trust as a bailee must be deemed to have undertaken to deliver the goods according to the directions of the ship-owner from whom the goods has been taken charge of, and statutorily the ship-owner got an absolute discharge on taking the receipt provided for under S. 39, sub-sec. (3) of the Act. It would not, therefor, be open to the Port Trust to contend that the consignee had no cause of action against them for non delivery of goods which they had taken charge of. Far from the view of the Supreme Court that the Port Trust is not an agent of the consignee when the goods are delivered by the ship-owner helping the Port Trust, in our view, in a case like the present, it only emphasises the liability of the Port Trust. Now,

"The ship-owner remains liable under his contract until he has made delivery to a person entitled thereto. A delivery to a wharfinger or to a dock authority is not, in itself, sufficient unless the contract provides for such delivery, or unless there is a custom to that effect."

(Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edn., Vol. XXXV, p. 450, para 639).

(9) Ordinarily, it is the ship-owner's duty to get cargo out of the holds and to deliver it to consignee, while it is the duty of consignee to take delivery of it. The extent their respective obligations in any particular case is, in the absence of any special contract, regulated by the custom, if any, of the Port of discharge. Under the decision of the Supreme Court above refereed to, delivery which a consignee is entitled to is shifted from the side of the ship to the warehouses where the Board stores the goods till the consignee appears to take delivery. The quay is considered to be a part of the ship. If that be the real position, the tally sheets becomes matters of internal checking between the ship-owner and the Port Trust, as bailor and bailee, and the consignee is not concerned with the correctness of the same. If the quay is also a part of ship and the Port Trust is only a bailee bound to deliver according to the bill of lading. In this view, it is unnecessary to consider what is the scope of the operations.

(10) However, as the main argument in the case turned out the scope and effect of the tally sheet and the operations of the tallying resulting in the preparation of the tally sheet, we shall address ourselves to that also. The question for consideration is whether, if a receipt has been given under S. 39, sub-sec. (3) of the Act with reference to any consignment, it would amount to an acquittance or discharge of the ship-owner and of the landing of the cargo as per the related bill of lading. The contention on behalf of the Port Trust is that the tally sheet is guarantees only the landing of the goods as per the main marks and that the only interference that could be made is the landing of goods as per the main marks shown in tally sheet. It is argued that it could not follow that the according to their brands or subsidiary marks shown in the bill of lading had in fact been landed. But the point is not what the Port Trust has chosen to record but what is their legal duty and what are their obligation to the consignee when they land their goods and give an acquittance to the ship-owner. Under S. 39(3), once a receipt is given that a particular consignment had been taken charge, a complete discharge is given to the ship-owner. Sec. 39 refers to taking charge of goods by their leading marks only.

(11) In Carver on Carriage by sea, Vol. II (11th Edn.) at page 903, para 1092 leading marks are thus defined:

"The term 'Leading marks' means marks necessary to the correct identification of the goods. I may include quality marks where the actual goods that a consignee is to receive cannot be identified except by reference to such marks. It will not include marks that are not essential to the description and identification of the goods in a commercial sense."

(12) In the instant case, when there is more than one brand of the goods in question and the goods of the plaintiff cannot be identified except by the reference to the brand, KDK, the brand shown on the cases would also be leading marks. It is nobody's case that packages were not distinctly, correctly and permanently marked for purpose of identification. In Carver in Carriage by Sea, Book I, Vol. II, page 71, para 80, the position is thus stated:

"But where the marks inserted in the bill of lading convey a meaning as to the character of the goods, and it is on the faith of those marks that an indorsee takes up the bill of lading under a contract of sale, the person signing the bill will be estopped by S. 3 of the Bills of Landing Act, 1856, from proving that goods with those were not shipped under the bill.

"Apart from any question of estoppel the insertion of such marks in the prima facie evidence of the shipment of goods so marked, and prima facie, the will be liable if he fails to deliver goods so marked. The fact that the marks are quality marks are quality marks does not effect the position if they are necessary to the correct identification of the goods. But the ship-owner may be able to rely on a condition as to correct marking,"

(13) Clause 3 of Art. III of the Schedule to the Carriage of goods by Sea Act, XXVI of 1925, relating to the bills of lading provides: "After receiving the goods into his charge, the carrier, or the master or agent of carrier, shall, on demand of the shipper, issue to the shipper a bill of lading showing among other things-

"(a) The leading marks necessary for identification of the goods as the same are furnished in writing by the shipper before the loading of such goods if uncovered, or on the cases or covering in which such goods are contained, in such a manner as should ordinarily remain legible until the end of the voyage;

(b) Either the number of packages or pieces or the quantity, or weight, as the case may be, as furnished in writing by the shipper:

(c) The apparent order and condition of the goods:

Provided that, no carrier, master or agent of the carrier, shall be bound to state or show in the bill of lading any marks, number, quantity or weight which he has reasonable grounds for suspecting not accurately to represent the goods actually received, or which he has had no reasonable means of checking."

(14) Clause 4 of Article III provides-

"Such bill of lading shall be prima facie evidence of receipt by the carrier of the goods as therein described in accordance with para 3(a), (b) and (c).

(15) The Indian Bills of Lading Act IX of 1856, provides by Sec. 3:

"Every bill of lading in the hands of a consignee or endorsee for valuable consideration, representing goods to have been shipped on the board a vessel, shall be conclusive evidence of such shipment as against the master or other person signing the same, notwithstanding that such goods or some part thereof may not have so shipped, unless such holders of the bill of lading shall have had actual notice at the time of receiving the same that the goods had not in fact been laden on board:

Provided that the master or other person so signing may exonerate himself, in respect of such misrepresentation, by showing that it was caused without any default on his part, and wholly by the fraud of the shipper, or the holder, or some person under whom the holder claims,"

(16) The bill of lading generally in prima facie evidence against the ship-owner of shipment on board of the goods acknowledged under the bill of lading to have been shipped. As noted in the foot-note at page 70 Art. XX in Sir Thomas Edward Scrutton, Charterparties and Bills of Lading, 16th Edn.:

"The evidence to displace the bill of lading must not merely that the goods may not have been shipped, but that they were not; Smith v. Bedouin Steam Navigation Co., 1896 AC 70, 79, but this may be shown by conclusive evidence that after receipt by the ship-owner none of the goods were lost or stolen and that he has delivered all that he received.

The statement in the bill of lading is not to be displaced merely by a consideration of the balance of probabilities."

(17) On the above principles, it must be held to start with, that consignment bearing marks PKJ 1 to 10, KDK brand, as shown in the bill of lading, had been loaded at the port of origin. Now with reference to the consignment in question the Port Trust has given a receipt as provided for in S. 39(3). If the ship-owner bound by the contents of the bill of lading, as his bailee the Port Trust equally be bound. It may be that the Port Trust has not, while making the tally, verified the brands that were being unloaded. But, that does not stand n the way of the ship-owner getting a discharge for the consignment under the bill of lading. It is admitted that the master b of the vessel prepares a manifest, which is a list of cargo in the vessel taken charge from different consignors. It is intended for the Custom Officials and a copy is given to the Port authorities. It is admitted by D.W. 1 the section master of the Port Trust, that the manifest will be available with the Port Trust, when the goods are landed. It describes the articles which are to be landed from the ship. It describes the number of bill of lading, the main mark, the number of them and the brand. The relevant manifest in this case is Ex. B-5. It does show the description as KDK brand with PKJ marks 1 to 10. The witness would say that the goods are not tallied with reference to the manifest because of loss of time and the manifest is consulted after a month or two for accounting purposes. He deposes further that it is not possible for the clerks to note the number and description of the goods at the time of tallying. According to him, it is not the practice to verify whether all the goods which ought to have been landed have been landed or not. Whatever the steamer agents give to them they take.

(18) As the consignee need not be there when the cargo discharged and the duty of landing has been undertaken by the Port Trust in dealing with import cargo. D.W. 1 speaks it in a way. Learned counsel for the Port Trust submits that the discharge of the cargo proceeds at such fast pace that it would be practically impossible to note down the subsidiary marks. So for as the tally is concerned, the submission is that the two lists are prepared of the goods discharged, one by the representative of the Port Trust. It is stated that these two lists are tallied, and the representatives, the clerks of the steamer agents, sign the list in acknowledgement of the correctness of the entries therein. It is admitted that this list is a receipt provided for under S. 39(3) of the Madras Port Trust Act. We are unable to accept that the tally contemplated is with a similar list of the discharge of the cargo recorded by the representative of the master.

To tally is to see that two things agree or correspond, and if it is a checking it must be with something which is presumed to be correct. Chambers' Twentieth Century Dictionary describes a tally clerk as a checker of ship's cargo against a list. The Port Trust Manual of Instructions which though not on the record has been referred o without objection and is only a clearer exposition of what is disposed to by D.W. 1 gives an idea as to how tallying is carried on. As cargo is being landed, the Port Trust tally checker has to note on the document known as the tally sheet, which is the receipt prescribed by the local Government under S. 39(3) of the Act, the marks (if legible), description and condition of each package, and in the case of packages bearing numbers or several different marks, the correct number or mark must be vey carefully and clearly recorded. If this is not possible the packages should be tallied under "various" Should any discrepancy as to marks or number of packages be detected between the tally maintained by the tally checker and the alleged contents of any boat, etc., he will immediately bring the matter to the notice of the section master or the assistant section master under whom he may be employed at the time. The steamer agent also tally cargo as it is being landed. But this is independent of the tally taken by the Trust and is in their own interests. The manual also provides for check on tally. The section master or the assistant section master on duty should make frequent inspections to see that tally checkers are at their posts and that their tallies are useful and made independently of boat notes and of the steamer agents' tallies. The tally sheet prepared by the Port Trust clerk is done in duplicate and signed by the Port Trust tally checker and steamer agent's representative on the spot and this duplicate thus handed over constitutes under S. 39(3) of the Act.

(19) From the above, it is clear that the tally being of the cargo landed into the custody of the Port Trust, it must contain sufficient record of the marks and description as are apparent for the purposes of identification. If the Port Trust gives a receipt in a general way as in this case, for 120 cases of P.K.J. without specifying brands which are also mark of the consignment, they do so at their own risk. The consequences of the grant of receipt, under S. 39(3) is to acknowledge receipt of the cargo in question. The bill of lading is prima facie proof of the loading of the cargo and the receipt issued is the acquittance to the ship-owner of the discharge of the cargo. In Halsbury's Laws of England Vol. XXXV, (Simonds Edn.), page 456, para 645, the rule relating to different consignments is stated thus:

"Where the cargo is composed of goods consigned to different consignees, it is the duty of the ship-owner to deliver to each his proper goods. Thus, when the goods of same description are shipped under different bills of landing, the ship-owner must appropriate the correct quantity to be delivered under each bill of lading; and if the various consignments are distinguished by different marks, he must sort them accordingly."

(20) Where the Port Trust undertakes the duty of getting the consignments discharged from the ship it takes the responsibility when it gives acquittance to the ship-owner due discharge of cargo. That markings as regards the brand are an essential part of the description of the goods cannot be doubted. In Parsons v. New Zealand Shipping Co., 1901-1 KB 548, 560 it is observed:

"If I purchase cases of champagne identified by marks ABC what answer is when I claim my goods so marked and identified, to say that the goods tendered, which are marked XYZ are of the same value in the market, or even greater value than those marked ABC? For the above reason I think that the marks of identification in this case were of materiality to the plaintiff, and that the tender was not a good tender."

(21) The Port Trust in this case must, on the facts found be held to have landed the consignment of the plaintiffs as described in the bill of lading but failed to tender the same when required by the consignee. It is needless to speculate as to what has happened to particular goods. It may be that negligently they had been delivered to one or other of the four consignees. The possibility is there of goods bearing the particular brand being landed elsewhere or overcarried. But it is not open to the Port Trust to put forward any such plea. In fact, the plaintiffs had asked of the Port Trust to issue them what is known as the B certificate, i.e., the certificate that the packages in question had not come into the custody of the Port Trust. If such a certificate had been granted to them the plaintiffs could proceed against the ship-owners or consignors as they may be advised. On the contrary, the Port Trust issued the A certificate. The A form certificate is issued, when the goods enquired for had been trace and pointed out. the plaintiffs when enquiring specifically referred to the goods as described in their bill of lading referring to brand KDK. Ex. B-2 the certificate issued, clearly shows that the goods had been traced, admitting thereby that they have been landed. The Port Trust in fact traced addressed the steamer agents--vide Ex. B-3, whether they could issue the B certificate in the circumstances; But the steamer agents replied in Ex. B-4 that they could not be agreeable to the issue of B certificate, pleading that the goods were correctly laded, obviously taking advantage of the fact that the receipt had been issued to them in respect of consignment in question. In fact, the Port trust authorities had subsequently sent the outturn statements, Ex. B-11, wherein it had been shown that ten cases covered by the bill of landing in favour of the plaintiffs under the manifest line 124 were lying with the Port Trust. In view of issue of A certificate, the Port Trust would be precluded from saying that the steamer agents had not handed the consignments with the particular brand.

(22) The contention that there are practical difficulties in the tallying goods as per the manifest or recording discharge referring to the tally sheet the marks or description of the goods as apparent on the packages is neither here nor there. The Manual contains full and complete instructions for proper tally. If, as learned counsel states from the Bar, cases of error are few, it is well and good. But the duty of the Port Trust to land goods from the steamer to verify and make a record of the goods so received with reference to the identifying marks on the goods and to deliver the goods to the consignees being clear, it must be held in this case that they have failed in their duty. If in fact the Port Trust had not taken delivery of the particular consignment, there was negligence in their preparing the tally sheet and thereby disabling themselves from issuing to the plaintiffs the B certificate. If in fact they have received the goods, they failed in not duly tendering the goods to the plaintiffs. It follows that the decree of this Court in Second Appeal making the Port Trust authorities liable to the plaintiffs for the value of the goods in the question has to stand.

(23) The appeal therefore fails and dismissed with cots.

(24) Appeal dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //