1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. Suit No.1783 of 1980 with Suit No.1784 of 1980 The Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. ..Plaintiffs v/s. James Lawrence & Co. & anr. ..Defendants Mr.V. Mahajan i/by Divekar & Co. for Plaintiffs. Mr.Zal Andhyarujinha i/by Malvi Ranchoddas & Co. for Defendants. ----- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. Dated : 18 th November 2008 P.C. : 1. The Plaintiffs, who are the canalising agency of the Government of India in respect of import of cotton required by various Mills in India, have sued Defendant No.1, who is the shipper of the consignment and Defendant No.2, who was the local agent of Defendant No.1. Upon the service of the writ of summons, both the Defendants were represented by their respective Advocates. Their vakalatnamas have been filed. Both the Defendants thereafter filed their Written Statements. Issues came to be framed. Evidence has been recorded. 2. The Plaintiffs press their claim against only Defendant No.1. 2 3. The Attorneys of Defendant No.1 failed to obtain instructions. The Plaintiffs have sent their notices for recording of evidence when the Suit became ripe for hearing to Defendant No.1 at its last known address in Boston Massachussetes, U.S.A. The notices sent by registered Post have been returned by the Postal Authorities of U.S.A. with the endorsement “Not deliverable as addressed unable to forward”. The evidence has however proceeded. 4. The Plaintiffs' Advocate now makes a statement that he does not press the claim in Suit against Defendant No.2. 5. A contract came to be entered into between the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 on 9.3.1977. The Plaintiffs have sought to enforce the terms of the contract. Upon the delivery of goods, Defendant No.1 raised its defence relating to the inferior quality of goods. An arbitration took place with regard to the quality of the goods before the East India Cotton Association Limited, Bombay. A quality award came to be passed in favour of the Plaintiffs. However, that award was not executable as the precise liability of Defendant No.1 was not ascertained. The Plaintiffs have, therefore, sued the Defendants. 3 6. The Plaintiffs have filed their Affidavit of examination- in-chief showing their claim in respect of the import of cotton made by them against Defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 has failed to cross- examine the Plaintiffs' witness. The averments in the Plaint as well as the statement in the evidence have remained uncontroverted. The Plaintiffs are, therefore, entitled to the amount spent by them in the Suit as against Defendant No.1. Hence, the following order:- ORDER The Suits are decreed in terms of prayer (a) against Defendant No.1. The Plaintiffs withdraw their claim against Defendant No.2. The Plaintiffs shall be entitled to the return of the original documents produced by them. Two Notices sent by the Plaintiffs' Advocate by RPAD to Defendant No.1's last known address in the U.S.A. are taken on record. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)