Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR2007Bom15; 2007(3)BomCR458
..... reproducing clause 6 of the rules of bill of lading. this act further provides and deals with multimodal transport contract and transport operator and determine also along with other sea act and other acts. the liability and responsibility is of multimodal transport operators for loss of damage to the goods. it further simplifies the procedure with a view to reducing and eliminating interpretation in the continuous ..... of trade, commerce and business at national or international level.23. the multimodal transportation of goods act, 1993 (act 28 of 1993) came into force on 16th october, 1992 which provides for regulation of the multimodal transportation of goods from any place in india to a place outside india, on the basis of multimodal transport contract and for a matter connected there with. this act of 28 of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(5)BomCR275
..... statement filed by defendant nos. 6 & 7 there is no challenge put up to the bills of lading at p-13 to p-15 based on the provisions of the multimodal transportation of goods act, 1993. it is in these circumstances, the submissions of learned counsel mr. umesh shetty is required to be rejected.40. keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, i am ..... . 7.39. learned counsel mr. umesh shetty appearing on behalf of defendant nos. 6 and 7 in the course of arguments had drawn my attention to the provisions of the multimodal transportation of goods act, 1993 and had tried to contend that bill of lading at exhibit p-13 to p-15 have been issued contrary to the provisions of the ..... multimodal transportation of goods act, 1993 by pointing out the various provisions of the said act. in so far as this aspect is concerned, the said argument cannot be accepted because in the written .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2003(9)SC218; 2003(10)SCALE1; (2004)9SCC512
..... been placed on the inland vessels act, 1917 (as amended in the year 1977), the merchant shipping act, 1956 (as amended in 1983) and multimodal transportation of goods act, 1993 (as amended in 2000) and in that view of the matter the pedantic and regressive view should be discouraged specially in the light of ..... from time to time. [see national insurance co. ltd., chandigarh v. nicolletta rohtagi and ors.].71. the multimodal transportation of goods (amendment) act 2000 inter alia provides for responsibilities and liabilities of the multimodal transport operator. by reason of act 44 of 2000 a proviso has been added. section 5 of the said act ..... 5. in section 7 of the principal act, in sub-section (1), the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:- 'provided that the multimodal transport operator shall issue the multimodal transport document only after obtaining and during the subsistence of a valid insurance cover.' circulars:72. the insurance association has issued a circular dated 20th .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(1)ALLMR134; II(2006)BC459; 2005(6)BomCR829
..... of lading that the court at united arab emirates will have exclusive jurisdiction?5. whether the suit is within the period of limitation under the terms of multimodal transportation of goods act 1993?6. whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants are liable/responsible to deliver the cargo to the consignee directly despite the fact that the ..... suit. it has been thereafter contended that the suit is barred by law of limitation under the provisions of the multimodal transportation of goods act, 1993. it has been contended that the contract is governed by the said multimodal transportation of goods act, 1993 and, therefore, the suit ought to have been filed within nine months from the accrual of cause ..... it is the case of the plaintiff that the said cargo was stuffed into f.c.l. container bearing no. apls 279834 and in respect of transportation of the said goods, the 2nd respondent issued a bill of lading no. mum/yer/0317 dated 25.3.2001 at mumbai. it is the case of the plaintiffs that .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(2)BomCR537
..... for a vessel. he referred to the inland vessels act, 1917 (amendment in 1977), the merchant shipping act, 1956 (amendment in 1983) and the multimodal transportation of goods act, 1993 (amendment in 2000) to show the trend of domestic legislation in india towards making insurance compulsory and mandatory for ships and ..... multimodal transport operators and submitted that there is no good reason for holding that insurance is not necessary by following restricted view of english courts. mr. pratap submitted that the provisions of 1999 ..... durban in the context of ranking of claims against a fund comprising of sale proceeds of the vessel m.v. 'emrald transporter.'16. article 1(k) of 1952 brussels arrest convention which incorporates 'goods or materials wherever supplied to a ship for her operation or maintenance' as a maritime claim came to be considered by .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
..... cochin port, for shipment alone.10. under section 2(l), to be a multimodal transport contract, the multimodal transport operator should undertake to perform or procure the performance of multimodal transportation. under s2(k) multimodal transportation means carriage of goods, by at least two different modes of transport under a multimodal transport contract from the place of acceptance of goods in india to a place of delivery outside india. a co-joint reading ..... .00 with 11.5% interest. the defendant appeared and filed ia4862009 contending that the entrustment of cargo and its transportation were governed by ext.p3 which was a multimodal transport document, as provided under the multimodal transportation of goods act, 1993 (herein after referred as the "multimodal act"). clause 25 of the document specifically contemplated settlement of disputes by arbitration and conciliation and the jurisdiction of civil .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... the plaint. the proceedings are liable to be stayed under section 8 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996. it is further stated that provisions of section 26 of the multimodal transportation of goods act, 1993 (act no.28 of 1993) are applicable. reliance has been placed on orchid electronics vs.vinitec electronics pvt. ltd. , 2007 (supp.) alr266(delhi). learned counsel for the ..... to enable to file the bill of lading. it appears that the bill of lading was not filed on record. on 04.04.2014, reliance on section 26 of the multimodal transportation of goods act, 1993 was placed. it was specifically recorded in the order that the said act did not provide for statutory arbitration. it merely provided that the parties to a .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... section 8(3) application was filed in the same year as that of 6 the suit. we may also add that we have not gone into the multimodal transportation of goods act, 1993 for the reason that whether the present bill of lading is governed by the provisions of the act (section 26 in particular) or not would ..... have to be dismissed.4) in the original petition filed under article 227 of the constitution of india, the high court referred to certain provisions of the multimodal transportation of goods act, 1993, and also stated that the arbitration clause, being in a printed condition, there being no intention to arbitrate and nothing to show that clause 25 ..... counsel for both parties, we are of the view that the bill of lading makes it clear that the term merchant (which is defined in the standard conditions governing multimodal transport documents - clause (1) (e) as meaning shipper, consigner or consignee) expressly agrees to be bound by all the terms, conditions, clauses and exceptions on both .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC728; (2008)1MLJ992(SC); (2008)2SCC79; 2007AIRSCW7873; 2008(3)KCCR1742
..... the respondents, however, supported the impugned judgment.11. before embarking on the questions raised before us, we at the outset may observe that the provisions of the multimodal transportation of goods act, 1993 whereto reference has been made by the parties before the high court are not applicable as admittedly the mode of ..... act (except article 20bis) shall apply to the carriage of goods by ship from a loading port ..... transport was by sea only and did not involve any multimodal transportation as defined in section 2(k) thereof.12. the scope of the japanese act is stated in article 1 thereof sating:the provision of this .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
..... having effect by virtue of any law other than this act.? 24. all these arguments have left no impression upon this commission. this application has not been filed under the multimodal transportation of goods act, 1993. consequently, that act is not applicable. the complainant has filed the complaint under consumer protection act, 1986, where the limitation has been prescribed as two years. the ..... argued that the present complaint is barred by the limitation. he invited our attention towards sections 24, 25 and 29 of the multimodel transportation of goods act, 1993, which are reproduced as follows: 24. limitation on action. the multimodal transport operator shall not be liable under any of the provisions of this act unless action against him is brought, within nine months of [emphasis .....
Tag this Judgment!