Jaytee Exports (the plaintiff) agreed to sell fabric to DXB Knits LLC (the notify party) in Dubai. Natvar Parikh Industries Ltd (the first defendant) issued two bills of lading on behalf of its principal, Natper Lines Pte Ltd (the fourth defendant), for two consignments of the goods weighing a total of 16742.75 kg to be transported in a single container on the Express Jaya from Port of Cochin in India to Dubai Port. The bills were dated 15 January 1998 and issued in triplicate '[t]o order of Middle East Bank, A1 Riqa Branch, P.O. Box 5547, Dubai, UAE'. The first consignment comprised 221 cartons worth USD 48,627 under bill of lading COK/30312/DXB (the first bill). The second consignment comprised 49 cartons under bill of lading COK/30313/DXB (the second bill).

A letter of credit was opened in favour of the plaintiff and Allahabad Bank (the plaintiff's bank) forwarded the bills of lading to Middle East Bank (the notify party's bank). The delivery and payment term under the letter of credit was 'at sight', so the notify party had to pay Middle East Bank first before it could obtain the bills.

The goods arrived at Dubai Port on 2 February 1998. The notify party's payment to the Middle East Bank for the second bill was cleared, and it delivered the second bill to the notify party. However, the notify party did not pay for the first bill and did not receive the first bill from the Middle East Bank. Even so, the first defendant delivered both consignments to the notify party on 9 March 1998.

The plaintiff filed the suit on 29 November 2000 in India alleging the defendant's wrongful and illegal dealing of the goods by delivering the goods to the notify party without the plaintiff's knowledge, authority and consent. This delivery caused the plaintiff to suffer financial loss and damages in Kolkata, and it claimed for the recovery of a sum of INR 3,789,000. The plaintiff attributed the cause of the plaintiff's loss to the defendants' breach of the contract of carriage, wrongful conversion of the goods and negligence.

The defendants relied on the applicability of art 4 bis.1 of the Hague-Visby Rules and contended that the plaintiff's claim was time-barred in Singapore (the agreed forum) after one year, under art 3.6 of the Hague-Visby Rules and cls (f): notice of loss or damage and (g): time bar of Clause VI of the Standard Trading Conditions (printed on the reverse side of the bills), and time-barred for the tortious claims after three years. India, a signatory to the Hague-Visby Rules, has given effect to the rules, which are reproduced in the Schedule of the Indian Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1925.

The plaintiff referred to art 4 bis.4 of the Hague-Visby Rules to argue that the first defendant should not be entitled to rely on art 4 bis, and submitted that the defence of limitation was not available to the first defendant for three reasons. First, the case does not relate to 'loss or damage', so arts 3.6 and 4 bis.1 are not applicable. Secondly, the first defendant was neither the owner nor the charterer of the Express Jaya and so cannot be classified as a 'carrier' under art 1.a. Thirdly, the first defendant cannot rely on the clause in the first bill which it does not hold, and India, where the cause of action arose, is the proper jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff's tortious claim.

Held: Suit decreed.

The cause of action was conversion, and the court had jurisdiction to try, determine and adjudicate the suit. Since the suit was filed within three years of the conversion, the suit was not time-barred. The plaintiff was thus entitled to the sum of INR 3,789,000 along with simple interest of 8% per annum from the defendants.