Agents of a disclosed principal incur no personal liability for dues absent an express contract to the contrary.

The Plaintiff (Appellant), a body corporate under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, provided services including pilotage, mooring, and tug facilities to the vessel M.T. IRINIO at Vadinar Port

Defendant No. 4 (Indian Oil Corporation) chartered the vessel to transport crude oil

Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 acted as agents/sub-agents for the foreign ship owner, M/s Duchess Shipping Co. Ltd

Although Defendant No. 1 paid an advance deposit of Rs. 2,00,000, the vessel surreptitiously sailed away on the night of 16/17 March 1982 without obtaining a port clearance certificate or settling outstanding dues of Rs. 12,12,921.10

The Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery against the agents, the Master, and later impleaded the Charterer (D4) in 1986

The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 30.11.1999, leading to the present appeal

1. Whether the agents (D1 and D2) can be held personally liable for the port dues of a vessel when the identity of the principal (foreign ship owner) was disclosed to the Port Trust.

2. Whether the suit against Defendant No. 4 (Charterer) was barred by the law of limitation.

3. Whether the Plaintiff proved the contents and accuracy of the invoices/bills (Exhibit 180) submitted to claim the suit amount.

4. Whether Sections 42 and 43 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, created a contract of bailment making the agents liable.

The court primarily applied Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which stipulates that in the absence of a contract to the contrary, an agent cannot personally enforce or be bound by contracts entered into on behalf of a disclosed principal

It relied on the precedent in Prem Nath Motors Ltd. v. Anurag Mittal (2009) 16 SCC 274, affirming that agents are not liable for the acts of a disclosed principal

Regarding the proof of documents, the court applied the principle from Om Prakash Berlia v. Unit Trust of India (1982), stating that mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to proof of its contents

it interpreted Sections 42 and 43 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, regarding the Board's responsibility as a bailee only when it takes charge of goods upon the owner's request

The Court noted that the Arrival Report (Exhibit 91) clearly disclosed the identity of the ship owner as M/s Duchess Shipping Co. Ltd.; thus, the principal was disclosed, and the agents (D1 and D2) could not be held personally liable under Section 230 of the Contract Act

The Plaintiff failed to produce any written agreement where the agents had voluntarily assumed personal liability for the vessel’s dues

Regarding the Charterer (D4), although it had acknowledged liability for certain charges (Exhibit 143), it was impleaded only in 1986 for a 1982 cause of action, rendering the claim time-barred

the Plaintiff's witness admitted to having no personal knowledge of the preparation of the bills (Exhibit 180), failing to prove the truth of the entries as required by law

the Court rejected the applicability of the Major Port Trusts Act sections, as the Port had not taken "charge of goods" upon a request by the owner, which is a prerequisite for a bailment relationship under the Act

It held that an agent is not personally accountable for contracts entered into for a disclosed principal unless a specific contract to the contrary exists

The suit against the Charterer was correctly dismissed as barred by limitation, and the Plaintiff failed to prove the quantum of the claim through reliable evidence

No costs were awarded