-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.641 OF 2006 In NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1529 OF 2005 In SUIT NO.1571 OF 2004 Oyster Shipping Line (UK) Ltd. & Anr. : Appellants (Orig.Defendant Nos.3&4) V/s. S.K.Networks Company Ltd. & Ors. : Respondents ... Mr.V.K. Ramabhadran with Ms V.M. Daver for the appellants. Mr.Dinesh Joshi i/b. M/s.Fox & Mandal for respondent No.1. ... CORAM : R.M.LODHA & S.A.BOBDE,JJ. DATE : AUGUST 28, 2006. P.C. 1. We heard Mr.V.K.Ramabhadran, the counsel for the appellants for some time. 2. Article III, clause 6 of the (India) Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925 upon which reliance is placed by the -: 2 :- counsel for the appellants reads thus: "In any event the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered. [Thus period may, however, be extended if the parties so agree after the cause of action has arisen: Provided that a suit may be brought after the expiry of the period of one year referred to in this sub-paragraph within a further period of not more than three months as allowed by the court]. In the case of any actual or apprehended loss or damage, the carrier and the receiver shall give all reasonable facilities to each other for inspecting and tallying the goods." 3. Two facts are apparent to which there is no dispute. The first, as the averment in the plaint reveals, that on 21.4.2003, the consignment arrived in Shanghai and the plaintiff received the shipping advice from its Bank along with other shipping documents on the date. The second, that the suit has been filed on 4.5.2004. 4. Article III, clause 6 provides limitation of one year against the carrier and the ship in respect of loss or damage from the date of delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered. It further provides that this period may be extended by the parties by agreement after accrual of the cause of action. The proviso appended thereto provides that such suit may be -: 3 :- brought after the expiry of the period of one year within a further period of not more than three months as allowed by the Court. A bare perusal of the entire provision leaves no manner of doubt that one year is the period of limitation for filing the suit in respect of loss or damage against the carrier and the same gets extended by a further period of three months, if allowed by the Court. The counsel for the appellants sought to contend that the proviso that provides for extension of time of one year by a period of three months by the Court is referable to the period that may be extended by the parties by agreement after the cause of action has arisen. The construction put forth by the counsel for the appellants is misconceived and fallacious. Insofar as the parties are concerned, they may agree for extension of the period of limitation after the cause of action has arisen to any length of time without any restraint. The proviso is not referable to that agreement. The proviso empowers the Court to allow the suit to be filed even after expiry of the period of one year within a further period of three months therefrom and that has nothing to do with the agreement of the parties. 5. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff on 4.5.2004. The plaintiff received the shipping advice from its Bank -: 4 :- and other shipping documents on 21.4.2003. Though the suit has been filed by the plaintiff not within one year as provided in the main clause of Article III but it is within three months from the date of expiry of one year. Keeping that in view, the Motion taken out by the defendants was liable to be dismissed for the reasons stated above as the suit, prima facie, does not appear to be barred by time. 6. Appeal is dismissed in limine. R.M. LODHA, J. S.A. BOBDE, J.