Published September 5, 2026 · Legal Lighthouse
More cargo claims are lost to the calendar than to the merits. A claim that is sound on liability, well documented, and properly quantified is worth nothing if suit is instituted a day after the limitation period expires. In Indian practice, the limitation position for cargo claims is layered, and the applicable period depends on the contract of carriage, the mode of transport, and the capacity in which the claimant sues. This note sets out the working framework.
Where goods are carried by sea under a bill of lading, the Indian Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925, as amended in 1993 to incorporate the Hague-Visby amendments, governs the carrier’s liability. Article III, Rule 6 of the Schedule provides that the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of the goods unless suit is brought within one year of delivery of the goods or of the date when the goods should have been delivered.
Three features of this provision deserve emphasis.
First, it is not a mere procedural bar. The expiry of the period extinguishes the carrier’s liability itself. The consequences are therefore more severe than an ordinary plea of limitation, and the discretionary condonation available under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not rescue a claim extinguished under Article III, Rule 6.
Second, the period may be extended by agreement of the parties after the cause of action has arisen. In practice this is done through a time-bar extension granted by the carrier or its P&I club, usually in exchange for the claimant refraining from arrest or suit. Extensions must be obtained in writing, before expiry, and each extension should be diarised with the same discipline as the original bar.
Third, the clock runs from delivery or the date the goods should have been delivered. Where delivery is disputed, short-landed, or refused, the identification of the commencement date itself becomes a contested question, and the prudent course is always to compute limitation from the earliest arguable date.
Article III, Rule 6 also requires notice of loss or damage to be given to the carrier in writing at the port of discharge before or at the time of removal of the goods, or within three days where the loss is not apparent. Failure to give notice does not bar the claim, but it creates prima facie evidence that the goods were delivered as described in the bill of lading, and it hands the carrier an evidentiary advantage that is entirely avoidable. Consignees should lodge a protest at the time of taking delivery whenever there is any indication of damage, shortage, or contamination.
Where carriage is undertaken under a multimodal transport document governed by the Multimodal Transportation of Goods Act, 1993, the limitation position is materially harsher. Section 24 of that Act provides that the multimodal transport operator shall not be liable unless action is brought within nine months of delivery, the date when the goods should have been delivered, or the date on which the party entitled to delivery has the right to treat the goods as lost. Claimants accustomed to the one-year sea-carriage bar are routinely caught by this shorter period. The first question in any containerised cargo claim must therefore be: what document governs the carriage, and which statute applies to it?
Claims that do not arise under the contract of carriage stand on a different footing. A suit against a party in bailment, in tort, or under a charterparty attracts the general law of limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963, ordinarily three years from the accrual of the cause of action. Marine insurance recoveries, subrogated actions, and indemnity claims each carry their own accrual analysis. The coexistence of these regimes means that in a single casualty, different defendants may enjoy different limitation defences, and the claim strategy must be built around the shortest applicable period.
A point frequently misunderstood: the arrest of a vessel as security does not, by itself, interrupt the running of the time bar. Limitation is protected by the institution of suit, not by the obtaining of security. Where a vessel is arrested and released against security, the claimant must still institute proceedings within the limitation period, in the forum agreed or available, failing which the security itself may become unenforceable.
The working disciplines are straightforward. Compute the time bar on the day the file is opened, from the earliest arguable commencement date. Diarise it, and diarise every extension. Seek written extensions well before expiry, and never rely on an oral assurance from a carrier or club correspondent. Where an extension is refused and negotiations are continuing, institute a protective suit. And where the carriage is multimodal, assume the nine-month period governs until the documents prove otherwise.
This note is for general information only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no lawyer-client relationship arises from it. For advice on a specific claim, including computation of limitation on particular facts, please contact the firm directly.
For specific questions on a matter, please contact the firm directly — not just commentary.
