Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR2001Cal213,(2001)2CALLT445(HC)
A.K. Ganguly, J. 1. The case of the plaintiff in this admiralty suit is based on a claim for damages. The case is that the ship M.V. Lima-I carried the Cargo belonging to the plaintiff and she reached the sand heads on 1.4.2001 and was berthed on 9.4.2001. Thereafter, on or about 14.4.2001 at the Haldia Port the discharge of cargo commenced and was continued on diverse dates. Ultimately, the discharge of cargo was completed on 27.4.2001. 2. It is not in dispute that the entire quantity of cargo was discharged and taken delivery of by the plaintiff. 3. The cargo in this case is a kind of fertilizer and its effective use demands that its moisture content must remain very low and within a specified level. According to the plaintiff, such moisture content cannot exceed 0.5%. 4. But in the plaintiffs cargo, which she carried, at the time of discharge, the moisture content exceeded more than the prescribed limits. 5. In order to make out this case, the plaintiff mainly relies on three survey...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1998Cal142
ORDERRonojit Kumar Mitra, J.1. In an action in rem, in an admiralty matter, it was of course open to a plaintiff to seek to recover its alleged dues in respect to one vessel by causing another vessel to be arrested which either belonged to the same owner or a beneficial owner or one having control and possession of the arrested vessel. If both the vessels were owned by the same person, it was unlikely that the matter would come before the Courts. When the plaintiffs however, sought to establish and rely on beneficial ownership, or control and possession of the arrested vessel, intricate questions of interpretation, erudite deliberations by the Courts, public common law, provisions contained in international conventions and indeed the facts and circumstances of the case would become necessary to be considered, to decide the contentions of the parties. The exercise no doubt would, and in the instant case did, necessitate counsels for the parties, to resist the temptation of going on a pl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(1)ALLMR556; 2007(6)BomCR138; (2007)109BOMLR1875
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This chamber summons and the notice of motion in this Admiralty Suit can be disposed of by a common order, inasmuch as they were heard together so also similar contentions were canvassed by parties.2. The plaintiff has instituted this suit in the Admiralty & Vice Admiralty jurisdiction of this Court for the following reliefs:(a) For an order of Arrest of the 1st Defendant vessel for a sum of Rs. 42,60,000/-as per the particulars of claim shown in Exh.N hereto;(b) That the defendants be ordered to permit the plaintiff's a survey of the first defendant vessel; (c) For an order and decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against the first and second defendants for Rs. 42,60,000/ as per the particulars of claim shown in Exh.N hereto;3. It is the case of plaintiff that it is a company engaged in business of owning barges and ships. The first defendant vessel is a foreign flag ship presently lying at Port Alang, Gujarat. The plaint proceeds on the basis that the vesse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC2330; 1998(3)ALLMR(SC)640; JT1998(3)SC468; 1998(3)SCALE165; (1998)5SCC310; [1998]2SCR1032
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. Leave granted.2. World Tanker Carrier Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the ' WTCC' is the appellant in these appeals. WTCC is a foreign company registered in Monrovia, Liberia. It is the owner of a vessel m.t. 'New World'. The vessel is registered in Hong Kong. On 21st of December, 1994, New World was involved in a collision with a vessel m.v. 'YA Mawlaya' in international waters 200 nautical miles off the coast of Portugal. YA Mawlaya is a vessel registered in Cyprus. It is owned by M/S. Kara Mara Shipping Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Kara Mara'), a company registered in Cyprus. The said company is referred to variously in these proceedings as despondent owner/chartered of YA Mawlaya. On 20th October, 1994, Kara Mara sold the vessel YA Mawlaya to Vestman Shipping Company Ltd., a company registered in Cyprus. Kara Mara thereafter became bare boat charterers of YA Mawlaya. Prior to the sale of the said vessel, Kara Mara had entered into a mana...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioner had invoked Sections 9, 47, 48 and 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act) in the matter of foreign Award dated 10.12.2008 passed by the Arbitrator in a dispute between the parties. The petition was basically for enforcement of foreign Award against respondent No. 1 filed on 22.10.2009.2. By order dated 22.10.2009, the learned Vacation Judge had granted a temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner in terms of prayer (b)(ii).3. In the petition, the prayers were as under:(a)for an order and/or declaration that the Foreign Award dated 10th December 2008 (Exhibit A hereto) is enforceable under the provisions of Chapter II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and; directions be issued to enforce and execute the said Award dated 10/12/08 as decree in favour of the petitioner and against the Respondent No. 1.(b) that pending the enforcement and/or execution of the foreign Award dated 10th December 2008, this Hon&...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1998(2)ALLMR755; 1998(5)BomCR312; 1998(1)MhLj751
ORDERV.P.Tipnis, J.1. This appeal by the original defendants impugns the order dated 27th February, 1997, passed by the learned Judge in Notice of Motion No. 285 of 1997 in Admiralty Suit No. 113 of 1996. The notice of motion was moved by the defendants inter alia tor a relief that the order of arrest of the first defendant vessel be vacated and the plaintiffs be directed to pay costs by way of damages at the rate of U.S.$ 5,000/- per day.2. The plaintiffs Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. filed an Admiralty Suit No. 113 of 1996 against (1) m.v. Mariner IV a foreign vessel, and (2) AI-Fatah Shipping Co. incorporated under the laws of U.A.E. for recovery of U.S. $ 77,21,133.583 together with interest by way of damages for the loss suffered by the plaintiffs due to the damage caused to the plaintiffs property by the vessel m.v. Mariner II. The plaintiffs alleged that they have two under water submarine optical fibre telecommunication cables laid by them (i) stretching from Singapore to Marseille...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR2003Mad422
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. The vessel M.V. Neetu wasarrested pursuant to the order, in application No. 2221 of 2003, and is now detainedin the territorial waters of India at the portof Vishakapattinam. It has been there since20-5-2003 and now the respondents havefiled application Nos. 2396 and 2397 of 2003,for vacating the order of arrest and for directions to provide security to meet, the expenses of the vessel at the port ofVishakapattinam respectively.2. On 23-2-2003, a charter party Agreement was entered into between the respondents on the one hand and the applicants on the other. The cargo meant to be transported was 1100/1200 HT Myanmar Round Timber Logs per voyage on consecutive voyage basis, The duration of the, contract was three months, extendable at the charterer's option the charterer being the first applicant. After the expiry of the first three months' period, the charterer was bound to advice his intention to extend the arrangement. The charterers were also bound to ensu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1998(3)CTC85
ORDER1. The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of sum of Rs.9,35,267 with 18% interest per annum on the said sum.2. The main averments founds in the plaint are as follows:The plaintiff Supreme Paper Mills Ltd., Calcutta, placed orders for the supply of bleached soft wood sulphite pulp from one M/s. Georgia Pacific International Corporation, U.S.A. for 4,480 bales weighing about 1016 M.T. under four different bills. The consignment was loaded on board the 1st defendant vessel at Bellin Gha, Washington, U.S.A. on 3.8.85 covered by the respective Bills of Lading of the same date. The C.I.F. value of the entire consignment amounted to Rs.42,86,999.44. The Bills of lading on liner terms were issued in the name of the 2nd defendant Charterers of the 1st defendant vessel. After the consignment was loaded on board the 1st defendant vessel and the Bills of Lading issued, the documents were transferred to the plaintiff and the plaintiff became the owner of the Cargo, entitling them to tak...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. The above Notice of Motion is taken out by the Applicant/Original Defendant GEOWAVE COMMANDER (GC) for vacating ex parte order of its arrest dated 15th March 2013. 2. The Applicant/Defendant has pointed out that the Plaintiffs specific case in the Plaint is that they have a claim against Reflect Geophysical Pte. Ltd. (Reflect) for unpaid charter hire under a Charterparty dated 1st October 2012 concerning the Plaintiffs vessel Orion Laxmi (OL) which was chartered to Reflect as time charterer and further Reflect is the owner of the Defendant Vessel GC and consequently the Plaintiff alleged that it is entitled to arrest the Defendant Vessel GC. According to the Defendant, the entire claim of the Plaintiff rests on the allegation that the Defendant vessel is owned by Reflect which is incorrect. The Defendant vessel is owned by Master and Commander AS, Norway, a Company incorporated under the Laws of Norway and not Reflect. It is submitted that the Plaintiff admittedly has no claim ag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR2000Bom6; 1999(3)ALLMR196; 1999(4)BomCR384; (1999)2BOMLR696; 1999(3)MhLj25
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. The plaintiffs company has filed this suit originally against M.V. Anny L for the sum of US Dollars 91,902.81 with interest, costs etc. According to the plaintiffs, their claim was in respect of supply of bunkers to the defendants vessel. It has been further stated in the plaint that the vessel M.V. Anny L was previously known as Alexia S, but from 20th December 1995 the ownership of Alexia S was changed from the previous owners Navabot Shipping Limited to Sokona Shipping Limited who were sub-sequently joined as defendant No. 2 by way of amendment of the plaint.2. In the written statement the defendants raised different objections to the claim of the plaintiffs. Similarly, objections regarding tenability of the suit were also raised, and therefore, consequently following issues were framed by the Court:-ISSUES 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that any request for supply of bunkers was received by them from the Master of the defendant vessel ?2. Whether the plai...
Tag this Judgment!