This judgment concerned a dispute between Krishna Exports (the plaintiff) and Maxicon Container Line (the defendant) regarding the maintainability of a commercial suit governed by the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1925 (India) (COGSA). The central issue revolved around whether the suit, filed under the Commercial Courts Act 2015 (India), was barred by limitation under art 3.6 of the Schedule to COGSA [which gives domestic effect to the Hague Rules in India], which mandates that any action against a carrier must be filed within one year from the date of delivery or the date when delivery should have occurred.

The plaintiff argued that since the case was instituted as a commercial dispute under s2(c)(v) of the Commercial Courts Act, the provisions of the Limitation Act 1963 (India) should apply, granting a limitation period of three years. The plaintiff contended that the Commercial Courts Act, being special legislation designed for the speedy resolution of commercial disputes, should prevail over COGSA. It was further argued that the initiation of pre-institution mediation under s 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act within one year should be deemed equivalent to filing a suit.

In contrast, the defendant argued that COGSA is a special law specifically governing carriage of goods by sea, including limitation periods. Reliance was placed on Kandla Export Corp v OCI Corp (2018) 14 SCC 715, where the Supreme Court held that COGSA, as specialised legislation, prevails over general commercial statutes.

The Court analysed the legislative intent and the preamble of COGSA, emphasising that it was enacted to unify international maritime carriage rules and define carrier liability under Bills of Lading. It concluded that COGSA forms a complete code for sea carriage contracts, including limitation provisions, and therefore cannot be overridden by the general procedural framework of the Commercial Courts Act, which only provides for expeditious adjudication of commercial matters.

Held: The case is time-barred.

COGSA constitutes a special enactment enacted to implement internationally accepted Conventions for uniform rules on bills of lading and maritime liability. Consequently, its provisions, particularly art 3.6, which prescribes a strict one-year limitation period (extendable by only three months through court permission), have overriding effect over general laws such as the Commercial Courts Act 2015 and the Limitation Act 1963.

Relying on Life Insurance Corp of India v DJ Bahadur 1980 AIR 2181, the Court reaffirmed that whether a statute is 'special' or 'general' depends on the field it governs. Since COGSA deals specifically with maritime carriage of goods and contractual rights under bills of lading, it qualifies as a special law, compared to the Commercial Courts Act, which only establishes procedural mechanisms for speedy resolution of commercial disputes.

The Court rejected the plaintiff's argument equating pre-institution mediation unders 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act with the filing of a suit. Referring to the Commercial Courts (Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement) Rules 2018 and the Mediation Act 2023, it clarified that mediation is an alternative dispute resolution process and cannot be considered a judicial proceeding initiating a suit under s 26 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908, which requires the presentation of a plaint. The time spent in mediation may be excluded from limitation under the Limitation Act, but such proceedings do not extend or substitute the one-year bar imposed by art 3.6 of COGSA.

Accordingly, COGSA's limitation clause expressly excludes the application of the Limitation Act, and the Commercial Courts Act cannot override this special maritime law.