In the present case petitioner submitted an ocean bill of lading issued by EXCALIVOR LOGISTICS who is a freight forwarder and agent. Therefore, as per Article 1(a) of schedule of the Carriage of Goods Sea Act, 1925, EXCALIVOR LOGISTICS is neither an owner nor a chatterer of the vessel and had no authority to issue any bill of lading. So, the bill of lading placed by the petitioner was not a bill of lading as per Article-1 (a) of schedule of “The carriage of goods by Sea Act, 1925.” ...Md. Ibrahim Vs. Bangladesh, (Civil), 1 SCOB [2015] HCD 136 ....View Full Judgment

The Limitation Act, 1908
Sections 4 to 25
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925
Article III Rule 6 of the Schedule/Rules
Filing the suit for loss or damage to goods– The period of limitation for filing any suit for loss or damage to goods that occurred in the course of carriage, will be one year from the date of delivery of the goods. The well-established principle of law based on this section is that the defendant’s failure to plead the bar of limitation as a defence will not save the suit from being barred by limitation unless any of the provisions mentioned in sections 4 to 25 are applicable.
Hence, we find that the filing of the suit in Singapore on 05.05.2001 beyond the period of one year from the date when the goods were delivered, or at the latest from 05.03.2000 when the joint survey report was published, was barred by limitation. Even if the defendants do not plead the bar of limitation, the court cannot ignore the provisions of section 3 of the Limitation Act in the absence of the provisions of sections 4 to 25 of the said Act. ...Eximpo Trading Limited =VS= M.V. Banglar Kakoli, (Civil), 2020 [9 LM (AD) 575] ....View Full Judgment