Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC24; JT2002(8)SC546; (2003)1SCC305
Banerjee, J.1. Leave granted.2. Issuance of warrant for the arrest of the vessel M.V. WON FU berthedat Madras Port has been the principal controversy before the Madras HighCourt in its Admiralty Jurisdiction.3. The plaintiff being the appellant herein instituted a suit for recovery ofdamages of 11 lakhs for breach of contract with interest at the rate of 24%per annum by reason of loss and damages suffered and caused by breach ofcontract by the defendant vessel. The factual element we will refer shortlyhere after but presently be it noted that against the refusal to entertain thesuit and the consequent dismissal of the same before the learned trial judge,the plaintiff moved the appellant forum in the High Court but having failedto obtain the relief the petition for special leave under Article 136 has beenmoved before this Court and this Court at the admission stage itself uponissuance of notice and upon the grant of leave as appears herein before proceeded to deal with the issue without...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC2826; JT2000(9)SC184; 2000(5)SCALE618; (2000)8SCC278; [2000]Supp2SCR440
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. I have gone through the erudite and exhaustive judgment prepared by learned Brother, U.C. Banerjee, J., in these appeals. I respectfully agree with the conclusion reached by him. However, as the matter at issue has wide repercussions regarding the scope and ambit or admiralty jurisdiction vested in the Chartered High Courts or their successor High Courts, like the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, I deem it fit to record my reasons for concurring with the decision arrived at by learned brother.2. At the outset, admitted and well-established facts deserve to be noted in order to appreciate the contours of controversy posed for our consideration. They can be enumerated as under:1. Respondent No. 2 before this Court has suffered a foreign decree passed by the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Admiralty Court, England in monetary terms by way of damages for breach of contract for salvaging and towing the vessel 'M.V. AI Tabish' alleged to be. renamed as 'M.V. A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR2002Bom517; (2002)4BOMLR785; 2002(4)MhLj584
A.P. Shah, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from an order of Deshmukh J. by which he dismissed the Notice of Motion moved by the plaintiffs for arrest of the ship M.V. Mehrab to provide security for payment of an award which they may obtain in arbitration proceedings instituted in London. The learned Judge was of the opinion that a suit of this nature to arrest a ship in order to force security for a future arbitration award is not maintainable in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in M.V. Elizabeth v. Harwan Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd., : [1992]1SCR1003 .2. The matter arises as follows. The plaintiffs were the owners of cargo shipped on the second defendant's vessel M.V BRAVO under charter party dated 19th June 2000. The vessel M. V. BRAVO loaded cargo at the nominated load port. The second defendant and the said vessel M.V. BRAVO were unable to fulfill the voyage as a result of which the plaintiffs had to discharge the cargo and have It transhipped on another vess...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1986AP184
P. Chennakesav reddy, Actg. C. J. 1. In this appeal an interesting question of importance relating to the power of the High Court to order arrest of a ship under S. 6 of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty (India Act, 1891 (for short called the 'Act') for alleged tortious acts of the owners or master of the ship is raised.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the question may be shortly set out: The defendants in the suit are the appellants before us. The plaintiff-Harwan Investment and Trading Private Limited, Vasco-da-gama, Goa, is the seller of bauxite. M/s. Ras Al Khaimah Agencies Company Limited, Ras Al Khaima, U.A.E., (hereinafter referred to as 'buyers') are the buyers. The first defendant is the vessel N.V. Elisabeth lying in the port and harbour at Visakhapatnam. The second defendant , M/s. Daglia Maritime Corporation carrying on business in Greece is the ship owner. The third defendant, Transworld Shipping Services (India) Private Limited, Vasco-da-gama, is the agent of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Admit. Respondents waive service. By consent, Appeal is taken up for hearing forthwith. It is agreed between the parties that the final hearing of the Appeal shall be treated as disposal of Notice of Motion No. 271 of 2010 pending before the learned Single Judge.2. This Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 4th February 2010 passed in the aforementioned Notice of Motion which was moved by the Appellant original Applicant. The parties to this Notice of Motion are Respondent No. 1original Plaintiff and original Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 being Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein. Any reference to them as per their original position be understood accordingly.3. The learned Single Judge passed an adinterim order and posted the Notice of Motion for hearing and final disposal. However, the learned Judge directed the Applicant to furnish security to the extent of US $ 7.52 million as a precondition for vacating the order of arrest of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1982Ori57
B.N. Misra, J.1. This is the first suit filed in the Admiralty jurisdiction of this Court. Reena Padhi, widow of the late Rabindranath Padhi, is plaintiff No. 1 Rinku plaintiff No. 2 and Rajat plaintiff No. 3 are respectively the minor daughter and son of plaintiff No. 1 and the late Rabindranath Padhi. Minor plaintiffs 2 and 3 are represented in the suit by their mother plaintiff No. 1 who has filed an affidavit that her interest is not adverse to that of her minor daughter and son. The owners and parties interested in the ship 'Jagdhir' are described as defendant No. 1 and Messrs Great Eastern Shipping Company, Limited having their registered office at Mercantile Bank Building, 60 Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bombay are defendant No. 2. In the plaint both 'action in rem' and 'action in personam' are combined and pleaded against the defendants. However, Mr. S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, submitted to the Court that for the present he was not pressing for an action in rem. The...
Tag this Judgment!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 : AIR2003Bom265; 2003(2)ALLMR37; 2003(6)BomCR723
R.I. Rebello, J.1. The plaintiffs had moved this Court for an ex parte warrant of arrest against the 1st defendant and for some other consequential reliefs. An order came to be passed on 8th January 2003 in terms of the Judge's Order. Defendant No. 3 the owner of the 1st defendant vessel has moved this Court for vacating the said order on the ground that there is no cause of action.2. A few facts may be set out which would enable this Court to resolve the issue in controversy.The issue : Can a ship be caused to be arrested by a party to a charter party which has been terminated or come to an end, in an action in rem, without such party having a maritime lien and without the despondent owner being a demise charterer.The plaintiffs are a company organized under foreign laws. The 1st defendant vessel is a tug flying a Russian flag and at the time of arrest was within the jurisdiction of this Court. The 2nd and 3rd Defendant's have been described merely as foreign organizations, having the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(5)BomCR589
S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs inter alia for the relief of declaration that there is a due and payable a sum of US $ 7,806,188.77 to the plaintiffs by a company known as Gulf Oil in accordance with the particulars of claim annexed as Exhibit 'E' to the plaint. The plaintiffs have also sought a declaration that the Gulf Oil had failed and neglected and/or refused to pay the said sum or any part thereof. A further declaration is sought that the repayment of the said sum is duly secured by a valid and subsisting mortgage of the defendant vessel in favour of the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs are entitled to enforce and/or crystallise the said security of the defendant vessel mortgaged to them by the arrest, condemnation and sale. The plaintiffs have also sought a declaration that they are entitled to obtain possession of the said vessel and retain possession thereof. By prayer clauses (b) and (c) of the said suit the plaintiffs have sought a manda...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1989AP255
Yogeshwar Dayal, C.J. 1. This is an application filed by M/s. Transworld Shipping Service India Pvt. Ltd. (Petitioner-appellant) for condonation of delay of 466 days in preferring an appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge (Raghuvir, J., as he then was) dated 20th March, 1987. The application is opposed by M/s. Harwan Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd. (respondent-plaintiff) which filed the suit, C.S. No. 1 of 1984, against defendants I and 3, the ship and its owner respectively, and the 3rd defendant (petitioner-appellant) who is an agent of the 2nd defendant for a joint and several decree for recovery of Rs. 14,25,000/-with interest. The learned single Judge decreed the suit as prayed for. Against that judgment, the defendants 1 and 2 filed an appeal, but no appeal was filed by the present appellant. 2. The 3rd defendant filed the appeal in this Court on 28th July, 1988. As the appeal was barred by limitation, the present application, C.M.P. No. 14272 of 1988, has been ...
Tag this Judgment!