The plaintiff imported a consignment of machinery, accessories and spares from CMI Trading (UK). The plaintiff's consignment was inspected by Inspectorate Griffith (UK) Ltd before shipment from the UK and was certified to be in good running condition. Three bills of lading were issued in London in respect of the plaintiff's cargo. The bills of lading described the cargo as 'shipped in apparent good order and condition'. Some time after the vessel had sailed from Hull it was towed to Southampton for repairs. Eventually the vessel arrived at Chittagong in Bangladesh and had to undergo repairs at the Chittagong dry dock jetty. The vessel finally arrived at Mongla and discharge of the cargo commenced on 22 February 2000. A joint survey of the plaintiff's cargo was conducted on board the vessel during discharge. It was found that the cargo had suffered loss and damage. The cargo was eventually received in completely unserviceable and non-operational condition rendering it useless and beyond economic repair. The plaintiff sent a letter of demand claiming BDT 59,428,890 for the losses suffered, but failed to recover the amount.

The defendants argued, among other things, that the suit was barred by limitation.

Held: Plaintiff's suit dismissed.

In Albert David (Bangladesh) Ltd v Brestem Shipping Co Ltd, LEX/BDHC/0142/1982; 1983 BLD 3; 34 DLR 362 it was held by the High Court Division that a suit filed beyond one year is barred by limitation. In Karachi Steam Navigation Co Ltd v Ebrahim Gani, PLD 1957 Karachi 315 it was held by the Court that the appellant filed the suit a month after the expiry of one year and therefore according to art 3.6 [of the Hague Rules] his right to file the suit was extinguished and was no longer in existence. In AIR [1981] Calcutta 298 Konsumex v Ananda & Co it was held by the Calcutta High Court relying on a decision of the Supreme Court of India in East & West Steamship Co, Georgetown, Madras v SK Ramalinga Chettiax, MANU/SC/0015/1960; AIR 1960 SC 1058 that the words in art 3.6 of the Schedule of the Indian Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1925 are apt to express an intention of total extinction of the liability. It is hardly necessary to add that once the liability is extinguished under this clause, there is no scope of any acknowledgment of liability thereunder. In East & West Steamship Co the Supreme Court of India has laid down that the operation of art 3.6 does not result merely in the extinction of the remedy against the carrier by a claimant but absolves the carrier from any liability.

From the above it is clear that the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation and the right of the plaintiff to file the suit is extinguished and no longer in existence.