CHITTAGONG PORT ACT (V OF 1914)
Section—109(2)
Suit
against Chittagong Port Trust for short delivery—Suit to be filed within six
months of accrual of right to sue in accordance with section 109(2) of
Chittagong Port Act which prescribes a special law of limitation—Article 115 of
Limitation Act not applicable—Limitation Act (IX of 1908) S. 29 and Art. 115.
Chittagong
Port Authority Vs. Sadharan Bima Corporation and others; 1BLD(AD) 373
Section—109(2)
Accrual of
right to sue—Right to sue for compensation for short delivery accrues against
Port Trust on the date plaintiff gets definite knowledge that the Port Trust
was responsible for the shortage.
Chittagong
Port Authority Vs. Sadharan Bima Corporation & others; 1 BLD (AD) 373.
Ref:
PLD 1959 Kar 364.
Section—109(2)
Suit
against ‘Port Turst’—Plai ntiff entitled to add the period of notice under
section .109 (1) of Chittagong Port Act in computing the period of limitation.
Chittagong
Port Authority Vs. Sadharan Bima Corporation & others; 1 BLD (AD) 373.
Section—50B
Removal
of goods from port area—Section 50B of Chittagong Port Act providing that Port
Trust shall not be responsible for goods if not removed from port area within 5
days of landing—Section 50B not applicable when Port Trust denies receipt of
goods in its custody.
Chittagong
Port Authority Vs. Sadharan Bima Corporation and others; 1 BLD (AD) 373.
Section—50A
Liability
of delivering goods as bailee— When Chittagong Port Authority is absolved of
such liability—Where the goods could be found and thern consignee was given
notice to clear up the goods after ascertaining the same out of the goods
landed under nil mark, the Port Authority is absolved of the liability—
Contract Act (IX of 1872) Ss. 161, l52 and 161.
Chittagong
Port Authority Vs. MIs. Hong Kong Shipping Lines and others; 9 BLD (HCD) 1.
Sections—50,
40A and 63
Liability
of the Port authority to pay compensation for non-delivery of goods—When the
Shipping Company had delivered the goods the port authority must be deemed to
be the agent for the consignee—The liability of the Port authority must be
deemed to be of the agent for the consignee—The liability of the port authority
is that of a bailee—They would be liable in the absence of proof that they took
as much care of the goods as a man of ordinary prudence would in similar
circumstances take—A suit based on non-delivery is really based on a breach of
the duty—Contract Act (IX of 1872) Ss. 151, 152 and 161.
The
Chittagong Port Authority Vs. Md. Ishaque and others; 3 BLD (AD) 338.
Ref:
AIR. 1959 (Mad)367; A.I.R. 1928 (Lab) 774; 1895 A.C 632; (1911) 2 K.B.
(C.A.)291;(1919) I K.B.(C.A.) 443.
Section—50A
Onus of
proof—B
ailee’s onus under the Chittagong Port Ordinance—It is well settled that onus
is on the Bailee to show that missing, loss etc. happened because of factor
beyond the control of the Bailee—The statutory Bailee having failed to take
proper measure for protection of the goods cannot avoid liability for the
loss—Here it is not the case that the consignee having failed to clear the
goods after notice the port authority is absolved of the liability—It is a
clear case of non- delivery—Contract Act (IX of 1872) Ss. 151, 152 and 161.
The Turstees
of the Port of Chittagong Vs. Khandkar Mahbub Hossain and others; 5 BLD (HCD) 115.
Ref:
A.I.R. 1957 (Myssore) 55; 17 DLR 582; 35 DLR (AD)364.
Section—109(2)
Limitation—Period of
limitation under the Chittagong Port Act—Right to sue accrues from the actual
date of knowledge of loss— The plaintiff will also be entitled to add the
notice period.
The Trustees
of the Port of Chittagong Vs. Khandkar Mahbub Hossain and others; 5 BLD (HCD) 115.
Ref:
35 DLR (AD) 364; 2 BCR (SC) 4.