Interim Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: N.M.1214/18 in SC 963/18 1
Date : 14.06.2019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1214 OF 2018
IN
S.C. NO. 963 OF 2018
(CNR.NO.MHCC010038822018)
M/s. Superfresh Fruits Pvt. Ltd. ) ….Plaintiff
VERSUS
M/s. KLM Cargo ) .... Defendant
Appearances:
Mr. Ramana h/f Saikumar, Advocate for plaintiff present.
Mr. K. Jagose, Advocate for defendant present.
Coram : His Honour Judge
Shri. A.H.Laddhad
Addl. Judge
CR No. : 32
Dated : 14th June, 2019.
: ORDER :
1. The Defendant has filed instant Notice of Motion for dismissal of
suit. It is contended by the defendant that the suit is barred by
limitation. As per Carriage by Air Act, 1972. The plaintiff aught to
have filed suit within 2 years, reckoned from the date of arrival at the
destination, or from the date on which the aircraft ought to have
arrived, or from the date on which the carriage stopped. The plaintiff
filed suit beyond aforesaid period of 2 years. Hence, the suit is time
barred and same needs to be dismissed.
-- 1 of 3 --
N.M.1214/18 in SC 963/18 2
2. It is further contended by the defendant that goods were sent by
carriage by Air. Thus, the Carriage by Air Act governs the transaction.
The Limitation Act would not be applicable in the present case. The
special statute would override the General Statute, hence, he prayed for
dismissal of suit.
3. Per contra, the plaintiff filed his reply and opposed the
application on the ground that, the plaintiff immediately on 15.11.2013
lodged their claim with the defendant. Therefore, as per condition of
Section 30 of ScheduleII, the action for damage is lodged within the
period of 2 years. Hence, suit filed by the plaintiff is well within
limitation.
4. Heard both the side, Perused application and reply. The suit is at
the stage framing of issues. The defendant have raised issue of
limitation, which goes to the route of matter. Hence, as per Order 14,
Rule 2, this Court is framing issue of limitation as preliminary issue and
parties are at liberty to lead their documentary as well as oral evidence.
Thus, I proceed to pass following order.
: ORDER :
1. The issues of Limitation be framed as preliminary issue.
2. Parties are at liberty to lead documentary or oral evidence of next
date.
(A.H.Laddhad)
Additional Judge
Bombay City Civil Court
Dated : 14.06.2019 Greater Mumbai
Dictated on : 14.06.2019
Transcribed on : 14.06.2019
Draft submitted on : 15.06.2019
Checked on : 15.06.2019
Signed on : 17.06.2019
-- 2 of 3 --
N.M.1214/18 in SC 963/18 3
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
17/06/2019 at 4.00 p.m. (Ms. V.V.Sawant)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
room no.)
Shri A.H.LADDHAD
(C.R. No.32)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ ORDER
14/06/2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
17/06/2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded
on
17/06/2019
-- 3 of 3 --