Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 05-11-2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Plaintiff – Mariana Express Logistics (address: No.4, Second Floor, 1st Main Road, Seethammal Extn, Teynampet, Chennai). Defendants – 1) China Cosco Shipping Corporation Limited (Shanghai, China) and 2) Cosco Shipping Lines India Private Limited (Chennai).
  • Case Numbers: A No. 4124 of 2025 and CS No. 158 of 2021.
  • Claim: Recovery of Rs. 1,34,78,813/- (principal) with interest, plus Rs. 25,00,000/- compensation for alleged harassment, arising from detention charges on 145 containers imported on vessels “VERMONT TRADER” and “WANHAI 515”.
  • Background: Plaintiff imports cargo for customers using third‑party logistics. The cargo was shipped by the 1st defendant, China Cosco Shipping Corp., and the 2nd defendant acted as its agent. Detention charges were incurred because containers were not returned within the agreed period; the 2nd defendant raised invoices for these charges, which the plaintiff paid and now seeks refund, claiming the delay was not its fault.
  • Key Documents: Non‑negotiable seaway bill dated 05.04.2020 (issued by New Golden Sea Shipping Pte. Ltd), tax invoice dated 29.05.2020 issued by Cosco Shipping Lines India Private Limited, and plaintiff’s affidavit of admission and denial dated 12.07.2025 admitting the bills of lading and their terms.
  • Legal Contentions:
  • Applicant (2nd defendant) argued that it was merely an agent of the disclosed principal New Golden Sea Shipping Pte. Ltd; under Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act, an agent of a disclosed principal is not personally liable. It also noted that the principal was not impleaded and that the bills of lading confer jurisdiction on the Singapore High Court, not the Madras Court.
  • Respondent (plaintiff) countered that the 2nd defendant was an agent of the 1st defendant, that the 1st defendant is a 100 % subsidiary of New Golden Sea Shipping Pte. Ltd, and that the plaintiff had previously sought revocation of leave (Application No. 3118 of 2021) which was dismissed on 20.06.2023. The plaintiff also argued that the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the invoices could not be ignored.
  • Authorities Relied Upon: Cases cited include Godaddy.com LLC v. Puravankara Projects Ltd (2022), Interglobe Aviation Ltd. v. N. Satchidanand (2011), BRS Ventures Investments Ltd. v. SREI Infra Finance Ltd. (2024), Hapag‑Lloyd (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Rushabh Sealind (2026), and Thakur Shipping Co. v. Food Corporation of India (1981).
  • Court’s Reasoning:
  • The Court affirmed that Section 230 unequivocally shields a disclosed‑principal’s agent from personal liability.
  • It found that the plaintiff’s own admissions and the nine bills of lading establish New Golden Sea Shipping Pte. Ltd as the disclosed principal.
  • The Court rejected the plaintiff’s jurisdiction argument, noting that the earlier order dismissing the revocation application made the Singapore jurisdiction claim untenable.
  • Applying the test for summary judgment under Order XIII‑A of the CPC, the Court concluded that the plaintiff has no real prospect of success and there is no compelling reason to proceed to trial.

Final Outcome

  • The application for summary judgment is allowed. The suit is dismissed as against Cosco Shipping Lines India Private Limited (the 2nd defendant). No order as to costs is made.

Topics: Legal Liability, Shipping Dispute