| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1963 SLG 3521 = 1963 SLD 3521 = 1963 PLD 1022 |
Sindh High Court
Suit No. 220 of 1956, decided on 3rd September 1963.
Presented By: Qadeeruddin Ahmed, J
Noor Muhammad for Plaintiff. K. A. Ghani for Defendant. Dates of hearing: 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th and 31st August 1963.
Suit No. 220 of 1956, decided on 3rd September 1963.
Presented By: Qadeeruddin Ahmed, J
Noor Muhammad for Plaintiff. K. A. Ghani for Defendant. Dates of hearing: 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th and 31st August 1963.
H. H. S. FELDMAN-Plaintiff
VERSUS
PROVINCE OF EAST BENGAL-Defendant
Law: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)
Section: 20
Contract-Breach-Suit for damages-Jurisdiction of Court determined by contents of plaint and not by defence raised-offer accepted conditionally at place D and condition accepted by other 'in, party at place K-Contract, held, made partly at D and partly at K. Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 20(1)-Word; "payment on account of debt"-Means where an interim payment of debt is made--Section 20(1) applicable only to cases where such payment is made-Any payment made in relation to debt-Does not renew period of limitation-Debtor paying part of debt with clear state ment ". . . we have . . . settled your claim"-Period of limitation not renewed. N. A. M. Appasami Pillai v. Morangam Muthirian and another A I R 1935 Mad. 371 distinguished. JUDGMENT This suit is for the recovery of Rs. 1,23,797-9-6, out of which Rs. 99,407-9-6, are claimed as damages and Rs. 24,390-0-0 as interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum from the 29th of May 1952, up to the date of institution of the suit. The case of the plaintiff is that he entered into a contract with the defendants, vide his letter dated 26th January 1952, (Exh.8). He had undertaken to supply about 6,500 tons of Aden crushed sea-salt and had chartered the ship s. s. "Tang Shan" for carrying that salt from Aden to Chittagong. The ship arrived at the outer anchorage of Chittagong on the 15th of April 1952, and proceeded to the berth on the 19th of May 1952, and commenced discharging the cargo on the same day. The discharge was completed on the 28th of May 1952. The cargo was actually discharged in about 9 days but the readiness of ship to discharge it had been notified on 15th of April 1952. From that date the ship had to be detained for 33 days 5 hours and 37 minutes, vide Exh. 16. The defendants have paid Rs. 77,251 as demurrage at the rate of .250 per day, vide their letter of the 4th of December 1952, (Exh. 21) for the detention of the ship in excess of the time that was agreed to be spent in discharging the cargo at the rate of 150 tons per hatch per day ; but have declined to pay the loss alleged to have been suffered by the Karachi Steam…