Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR2000Bom211; 2000(2)ALLMR48; 2000(2)BomCR556
ORDERR.M. LODHA, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed this suit against the 1st defendant vessel to be condemned in the sum of Rs. 45 lacs along with interest at the rate of 18%f per annum and for direction that the 1st defendant vessel to be sold and the proceeds thereof to be applied towards the satisfaction of plaintiffs claim. The plaintiffs have claimed damages and prayed that 2nd defendant be ordered and decreed to pay to the plaintiffs the sum of Rs. 45 lacs along with 18% interest thereon.2. The plaintiffs are the parents of Mr. Arvind Dube who died on 16-8-1996 on board the 1st defendant vessel when she was lying at Kandla Port. The 1st defendant is the vessel M.V. 'Umang' registered in St. Vincent and Grenadines. The 2nd defendant is a Liberian Shipping company and owner of the 1st defendant vessel. The 3rd defendant is the local agent of the 1st defendant vessel. The suit has been filed in the Admiralty jurisdiction of this Court on 11-3-1997 and at that time the vessel was lying ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1983Bom178; (1983)85BOMLR250
ORDER1. I am directed by this learned Chief Justice to try the preliminary issue of jurisdiction. That I hereby do. To that end, I briefly state the pertinent facts, recording at the outset Mr. Meghani's insistence that it be clarified that his clients, namely the 6th and 7th defendants, do not admit the plaintiffs' allegations in the pleadings. Neither party opted to lead any evidence.2. The plaintiffs' case is as follows :--(A) Plaintiffs 1, 2 and 3 are Greek Nationals and possessed the entire shareholding of the 2nd defendant-Company in respect of the 1st defendant vessel (referred to hereafter as 'the Vessel') of which 22 shares are held by the 1st plaintiff, 39 shares by the 2nd plaintiff and 39 shares by the 3rd plaintiff, making an aggregate of 100 shares in respect of the Vessel. The Vessel is registered in Panama and belongs to the 2nd defendant which is a foreign company organised under Greek Law. the 3rd defendant was the President/Director of Defendant No. 2-Company till hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1995Bom281
1. SIGMA COATINGS BV.,a company incorporated under the laws of Netherlands has filed this action in rem on the admiralty side of this Court against a foreign flat vessel known as m.v. 'AGIOS NIKOLAOS' at present lying in the part and harbour of Bombay and Cristeta Shipping Ltd., for recovery of sum Guilders (NLG) 58, 745.10 and Rs. 3,88,762.03 together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of the suit till payment. The plaintiffs have also sought an order from this Court to the effect that the 1st defendant vessel alongwith her engines, gears, tackles, bunkers, machinery, apparel, plant, furniture, appurtenances and paraphernalia be arrested under a warrant of arrest of this Hon'ble Court.2. The plaintiffs have made an application for interim relief seeking arrest of the 1st defendant vessel or in alternative for an appropriate order of injunction in aid of their assertion to the effect that the plaintiffs have maritime lien over the 1st defendant vessel in respect o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1973Bom18; (1972)74BOMLR514; 1972MhLJ798
ORDER1. The Plaintiff Mrs. Sahida Ismail has filed this suit in this Court in its Admiralty and Vice-admiralty Jurisdiction. In this suit, the steamship Petko R. Salvejkov is made defendant No.1; the Indian Agents of the owners of the ship Messrs. J.M.Baxi & Co. are made defendant No.2 and the consignees of the cargo in Colombo are made defendant No.3. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have taken out the present notice of motion for an order that the warrant for arrest issued by this Court on June 8, 1971 be superseded and set aside: that the guarantee executed by the second defendants in favour of the Admiralty Registrar on June 8, 1971 be cancelled and returned to the second defendants and that it may be held that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in exercise of its admiralty and vice admiralty jurisdiction.2. The facts on the basis of which the notice of motion is argued are not as all in controversy. On December 17, 1970 the plaintiff consigned a cargo of 569 Metric Tonnes...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2000Guj241
ORDERK.M. Mehta, J. 1. M/s. Jaisu Shipping Company Pvt. Ltd., petitioner-original plaintiff has filed this suit against the Owners of the Ship or Vessel 'Asean Crystal' (now known as Asean Mariner) owned by Universal Maritime Shipholding Ltd. defendant No. 1 and Glory Ship Management Pvt. Ltd. of Singapore defendant No. 2 that respondents-defendants be ordered and decreed to pay US $ 15,17,770 equivalent to Rs. 6,82,99,650/- (Rupees Six Crores Eighty Two Lacs Ninety Nine Thousand Six Hundred Fifty only) along with interest @ 18% from the date of the suit till payment as also an amount of Rs. 30,000/ (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) per day by way of damages from the date of the suit till the disposal of the suit and till the amount is paid, along with interest @ 18% thereon. The petitioner also prayed that the respondents-defendants be directed not to transfer the Asean Crystal (Asian Mariner) Vessel or any other vessels or other properties belong to the defendants. That suit was filed so...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1969)71BOMLR832
Tarkunde, J.1. This Notice of Motion has been taken out by a aviator in an admiralty suit. The suit was filed in rem by a supplier of necessaries to the vessel 'Easthampton' which was the 1st defendant in the suit. The second defendant was a Corporation registered in the U.S.A., which owned the vessel. The Corporation went into bankruptcy in the U.S.A. and is represented in the suit by trustees in bankruptcy. By an order made in the suit the vessel was sold by auction on 19th January 1965 for over two millions [sic] dollars. The aviator who has taken out this Notice of Motion, and who is referred to hereafter as the applicant, is also a Corporation registered in the U.S.A. and it claims an amount of Rs. 17,000 and odd for necessaries supplied to the vessel. The main prayers in the Notice of Motion are that the defendants to the suit may be ordered and decreed to pay to the applicant the sum of Rs. 17,000 and odd with interest and costs of the Notice of Motion and that the amount of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1990(3)BomCR496
H. Suresh, J.1. This is an action of limitation of liability filed by the shipowners, Shipping Corporations of India Ltd., for the purpose of limiting their liability for the consequence of a collision between their vessel 'M.V. VISHVA APURVA' and the Greek vessel 'M.V. DIAS'. The action falls within the scope of Chapter XA of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). The cause title shows that the action has been initiated in this Court in its 'Admiralty Jurisdiction' and the suit has been numbered as 'Admiralty Suit No. 17 of 1988.' After filing the suit, the plaintiff's obtained an ex parte order dated 9th August, 1988, virtually constituting a Limitation Fund in the sum of Rs. 52,52,241.50P. for the purpose of section 352-C of the said Act. The 1st defendants-Hindustan Shipping Yard Ltd. have taken out the first Notice of Motion bearing No. 3350 of 1988, while certain applicants have taken out the second Notice of Motion bearing No. 3355 of 1988 f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1961Bom186; (1960)62BOMLR995
1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the learned Principal Judge of the City Civil Court, Bombay, on 29th April, 1958 rejecting the plaint filed by the plaintiff appellant in suit No. 2957 of 1954 in the City Civil Court at Bombay, holding that the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.2. The plaintiff-appellant is a fisherman and at the material time was the owner of a country craft 'Pandavi'. He filed the above suit against the defendant company as owners of a cargo boat 'Jalmanjari' claiming a sum of Rs. 10,000/-as and by way of damages alleged to have been suffered by him on account of a collision at a distance of about 10 miles from Worli Sea Shore between the defendant company's said cargo boat 'Jalmanjari' and the plaintiff's country craft 'Pandavi', alleged to have occurred due to the negligence of the defendant company, its servants and agents on the said boat resulting in the breaking in two parts and sinking of the plaintiffs country craft.3. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2000)3CALLT216(HC)
V.K. Gupta, J.1. The appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 19.11.99 passed by learned single Judge of this Court in Admiralty Suit No. 3 of 1999 whereby learned single Judge passed a decree for a sum of Rs. 32.00 lakhs in favour of Respondent No. 1 and against the appellant. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as given herein below :2. The appellant is the owner of ship 'MV-NELSON'. This Ship is a foreign Vessel registered in MONROVIA, Liburia (Greece) and files the flag of St. Vincent. The appellant is a Company incorporate under the Corporate Laws of Singapore and has its registered Office at Singapore. Respondent No. 2Multimedia Maritime Private Limited was appointed as the Agent of the Appellant in respect of the Appellant's Ship's activities after its arrival in the Port of Calcutta. On 6th February, 1999 Respondent No. 2, as authorised by the Appellant engaged Respondent No. 1 to supply and place sufficient numbers of barges lighters alongside ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1954Cal415,58CWN468
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an admiralty action in this High Court. It raises an intricate but interesting point of Admiralty Jurisdiction. To put. it graphically, the point of construction raised in the suit is how the words 'domiciled in England or Wales' appearing in Section 5 Of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861 (24 Victoria, Ch. X) can be dovetailed in the topography of India, and when so does, what will be the scope and extent of the meaning of these words. The ancient lumber of admiralty law in India is in need of immediate legislative spring cleaning, so that her citizen of today may be spared in future from the task of solving such problem of Indianising English geography by having to interpret English Statutes.2. Before discussing this point which does not appear to be covered by any decision in India, it is essential to state the accessory facts.3. The suit is instituted by Jayaswal Shipping Company, a registered partnership, against the owners and parties interested in the Stea...
Tag this Judgment!