P L D 1958 Dacca 101 (PLP)

A. S. Chowdhury and B. N. Chowdhury for Respondent. AKBAR, J.‑Defendant No, 1 is the appellant before us The plaintiffs, Messrs. Dada, Ltd., filed the suit, out of which this appeal arises, against the defendant, Messrs. Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co., to recover Rs. 3,582 on the allegation of short delivery of two cases of Japanese art silk fabric out of a consignment of 5 cases shipped at Osaka (Japan) to be carried to Chittagong via Singapore. The cloths were shipped on board the S. S. Ozarda and Bill of Lading was given and accepted there in conformity with the contract. The consignment was insured with Messrs The Tokyo Marine and Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., and they were made defendant No. 2 in this suit. Both the defendants contested the suit. Defendant No. 1 admitted short delivery of two cases, but their contention was that under the terms of the Bill of Lading their liability was limited to 100 per unit. In other words, the plaintiffs were entitled to 200 for the two cases. They fur ther alleged that they were willing to pay the said amount in Pakistani currency, but the plaintiffs refused to accept the same. The learned Munsif held that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the actual value of the goods contained in the two cases and hence he decreed the suit in full. He, however, dismissed the suit against defendant No. 2, Messrs. The Tokyo Marine and Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. On appeal by defendant No. 2, Messrs Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co., the learned Subordinate judge found that this contract would be governed by the Laws of England, and hence the plaintiffs would be entitled to recover gold value of 200 amounting to Rs. 3,582 in Pakistani currency. As the Munsif had decreed the suit for the said amount, he dismissed the appeal. Now. it is not disputed that the port of loading not being a port in Pakistan, the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (Act XXVI of 1925), as adapted in Pakistan, is not applicable to this case. Furthermore, the Bill of Lading in question does not con tain a statement as required by section 4 of the Act, namely. that it is to have effect 'subject to the provisions of the said rules as applied by Act XXVI of 1925. Hence the question is if non‑compliance with the provisions of section 4 of the Act would make this Bill of Lading illegal. A similar question arose in the case of The British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., and another v. Ahrnad Abdul Gani and others Second Appeal No. 764 of 1954, and we held, relying on the decision of Vita Food Products Incorporated v. Unus Shipping Co., Ltd. (1939 A C 277), that disobedience of the provisions of section 4 did not make the Bill of Lading illegal. Now Clause 16 of the Bill of Lading provides " The contract evidenced by this Bill of Lading shall be governed by the Laws of England and in accepting this Bill of Lading the shippers and consignees expressly accept and agree to all its stipulations, exceptions and conditions whether written, stamped or printed, as fully as if signed by him or them." In the case of The British India Steam Navigation Co., Ltd., and another v. Ahmad Abdul Gani and others, we have considered the scope of such a clause. We have held that the contract should be construed according to the rules for construing English Bill of Lading see re : Missouri Steamship Co., Ltd. ((1889) 42 Ch. D. 321) and clones v Oceanic Steam Navigation Co., Ltd. ((1924) 2 K B 730). " The monetary units mentioned in these Rules are to be taken to be gold value:' The parties entered into the contract with reference to English Law and the defendants, therefore, cannot now be I heard to say that they shall not be bound by this gold clause. In our opinion, the decree of the lower Appellate Court as regards the law applicable to this case appears to us to be correct. The learned judge's finding that the gold value of 76,200 amounts to Rs. 3,582 in Pakistani currency has not been challenged before us. In this view of the matter, we affirm the decree passed by the Courts below and dismiss this appeal with costs. KHAN, J. ‑I agree. Z. A. S. Appeal dismissed.