Wed. Jan 27th, 2021

Ramesh Boghabhai Bhut vs State & Anr. on 23 November, 2020

3 min read

2. The facts of present case, as narrated in the present petition, are that

since 2009, the Petitioner, through his sole proprietorship has been

undertaking the business of fresh/dehydrated onions and garlic and other

CRL.M.C. 1616/2020 Page 1 of 26
perishable items export to various countries like Europe, Gulf and rest of

Asia. In January 2018, the Complainant’s office, Tiger Logistics,

approached the Petitioner and one Mr. Makbul Sheikh- salesman of Tiger

Logistics, from his office situated at Veraval, Gujarat met with the Petitioner

at the offices of the Petitioner which is also in Gujarat. During the meeting,

Mr. Makbul Sheikh represented to the Petitioner that the Respondent No.2 is

a commission agent and can provide cost efficient and reliable services.

Accordingly, on 17.01.2018, Mr. Makbul Sheikh addressed an email to the

Petitioner (issued from Verawal, Gujarat) thereby informing the Petitioner

regarding shipping lines available from Port Pipavav, Gujarat to Port of

Naples, Italy. On 10.02.2018, the Petitioner, based on the transit time of 21

(twenty one) days promised by Tiger Logistics, entered into a sales contract

with his customer Sadro SRL, an importer based in Italy. Upon such

commitment, the Petitioner provided 13 booking to the Respondent No.1 for

26 containers. The Petitioner only as a goodwill gesture as a sincere exporter

and upon the insistence of the representatives of Tiger Logistics paid an

amount of Rs.10,76,100/- (Rupees Ten lakh Seventy Six Thousand and One

Hundred Only) through cheque issued in Gujarat to the Shipping Line and

such payment was collected by the representatives of Tiger Logistics only as

CRL.M.C. 1616/2020 Page 2 of 26
an agent. Over the month of January, 2018, the Petitioner sent 26 (twenty

six) shipments of fresh onion through the Safmarine Shipment Line as

booked by Tiger Logistics. However, to the utter shock and surprise of the

Petitioner, the shipment did not reach the Port of Naples within 21 (twenty

one) days. On 12.03.2018, the Petitioner issued an email to the

representatives of Tiger Logistics based out of Gujarat expressing his

concerns with regards to the delay of 14 (fourteen) days in the delivery of

the shipment of fresh onions. The Petitioner issued another email dated

21.03.2018 to the representatives of Tiger Logistics based out of Gujarat

highlighting the delay in the delivery of the shipment. However, the

Petitioner received no proper response to any of its emails. Due to the

Petitioner’s growing concern over the delay in delivery of shipments and

risk of loss with every passing day, the Petitioner on 16.04.2018 issued

another email to the representatives of Tiger Logistics based out of Gujarat

expressing his concern over the delay of 24 (twenty four) days beyond the

delivery time of 21 (twenty one) days. On 21.04.2020, the representatives

of Tiger Logistics based out of Gujarat responded to the emails issued by the

Petitioner, acknowledging, and accepting the delay in the delivery of

shipment. The representatives of Tiger Logistics based out of Gujarat further

CRL.M.C. 1616/2020 Page 3 of 26
apologized for the delay in the delivery. However, to the dismay of the

Petitioner, there was complete failure on the part of the logistics service as

promised by Tiger Logistics and the containers were delivered after a delay

of many weeks. Due to the delay, the buyer in Italy cancelled the remaining

shipment of the Petitioner which caused an enormous loss to the Petitioner.

Despite the fact that the Tiger Logistics along with the Shipping Line,

caused a tremendous delay in delivery the containers led to the Petitioner

incurring substantial huge loss, the Respondent No.2 started demanding

approx. 37 Lakhs from the Petitioner. Since there was an utter failure of

shipping services provided by Tiger Logistics which cannot claim any part

of payment from the Petitioner.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply