Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2016 (8) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 1534 - SC - Indian LawsExistence of contact between the parties or not - Respondent No. 3 M/s. Zip Code and Respondent No. 4 Hoegh Lines/American President Lines Limited appears to have proceeded ex parte as they failed to turn up in response to the notices sent to them - agent-principal relationship or not - Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the goods in question were handed over by the Appellants to Respondent No. 1 as pleaded. But there is neither any pleading nor proof that the Appellants paid any sum for transportation or any other service to Respondent No. 1 at the time the goods were handed over to it or subsequent there to. It has been shown on behalf of Respondent No. 1 that Respondent No. 1 was simply an agent of the buyer with whom the Appellants had entered into contract. It is nobody's case that the goods were lost in transit. Rather it is a case where it has come on record that the consignment was received by Respondent No. 3 Zip Code Inc, a part of Coronet Group Inc. Since Respondent No. 1 was simply acting as an agent of Coronet Group Inc, as such, in view of Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 it cannot be held personally liable to enforce the contract entered between its principal and the Appellants. This Court, in its order dated September 10, 2009, has accepted the plea of Respondent No. 1 that Respondent No. 1 is not a consignee, but only an agent of the intermediate consignee - Respondent No, 3 Zip Code Inc, which is subsidiary to Coronet Group Inc, the consignee named in the cargo slips, is the only party which can be held liable for taking delivery without depositing the price of the goods with the Bank. Appeal dismissed.
|