Court : Kolkata
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. Both admiralty suits are actions in rem directed against the same vessel, MV Vinashin Sky. The plaintiffs are different. There are several applications which have been listed and heard. The principal issue raised in both suits is by one Vietnam Shipbuilding Industry Group though the legal status of such entity is unclear and, but for an appellate court order, such entity may not have had a right of audience in the second suit. In the opening paragraph of GA No. 3476 of 2009, which is a petition for dismissal and/or rejection of the plaint relating to the earlier suit, the Vietnamese petitioner has not elaborated on its legal status though the petitioner in claiming that one Vinashin Ocean Shipping Company Ltd is its wholly owned subsidiary, has given an impression that the petitioner is probably a company. The petitioner claims to be a State-owned enterprise of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. In the translated version of its certificate of business registration...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1961Bom200; (1960)62BOMLR1017
1. This is an appeal filed by the plaintiffs, the widow and the heirs of one Eknath Dhondu Adurkar, who died as a result of the collision on the high seas between the defendant company's cargo boat 'Jalamanjari' and the country craft 'Pandavi'. This widow and the heirs filed suit No. 72-5 of 1955 in the Bombay City Civil Court claiming damages to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, on account of the death of Eknath Dhondu Adurkar, It was contended by the defendant company that the suit fell within the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the High Court and that the. City Civil Court had, therefore, no jurisdiction to entertain it. On behalf of the plaintiffs, however, it was contended that the suit was filed under the Fatal Accidents Act and that, therefore, it did not fall within the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the High Court. The learned Principal Judge did not agree with the contention of the plaintiffs and held that in spite of the fact that the claim in the plaint was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1828; 2006(2)ALD36(SC); III(2006)BC156(SC); (SCSuppl)2006(2)CHN53; [2006(2)JCR344(SC)]; JT2006(2)SC48; 2006(2)SCALE30; (2006)3SCC100; (2006)1Supreme677
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff-appellants challenging the judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dated 23.8.2004 whereby the plaintiffs' suit filed in Admiralty jurisdiction was directed to remain permanently stayed and the bank guarantee furnished by the defendant-respondents in the suit was directed to stand immediately discharged. The plaintiff-appellants were also directed to pay the costs.3. Appellant No. 1 Mayar (H.K.) Limited filed admiralty suit in the High Court at Calcutta on 27.3.2000 in admiralty jurisdiction along with appellants Nos. 2 to 5 with whom a contract to sell the goods was entered into by plaintiff / appellant No.1, against the defendant-respondents alleging, inter alia, that plaintiff / appellant No. 1 (hereinafter called 'A-1') is a company incorporated under the laws of Hong Kong and engaged in the business of export and import of timber logs. By and under a Charter Party Agreement entered int...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1922)24BOMLR1167; 76Ind.Cas.433
Marten, J.1. This is a notice of motion by Captain Yanovsky the caveator asking for an order that the decree made in Suit No. 1 of 1922 by my brother Crump on April 25, 1922, may be Bet aside, and that the sale made in pursuance of the said decree be also set aside. The notice of motion states that I have granted an interim injunction against completion of the sale until further order of the Court. That statement is admittedly 'incorrect and should be struck out. All I did was to give leave to serve short notice of motion for last Saturday.2. The suit itself is a curious one. The application is also a curious one : and it bristles with legal points-points which are of interest from an historical aspect and also on the question of our Admiralty Jurisdiction in this Court. It also carries with it points of interest to all of us in this High Court of Bombay, viz, that the various matters arising in the exercise of the Court's extensive jurisdiction should be carried out in a way which is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(1)BomCR143
Dharmadhikari S.C., J.1. The defendants have filed this notice of motion seeking the following reliefs:(a) That the order dated 3rd September, 2007 be vacated and/or set aside;(b) The plaintiff be directed to deposit in this Hon'ble Court or furnish security in the sum of Rs. 2,80,000.00 being the losses or damages suffered by the defendants due to order dated 3rd September, 2007.(c) Ad interim reliefs in terms of prayer Clauses (a) and (b) above;2. Plaintiff has approached this Court by filing the above Admiralty Suit and the relief claimed therein is that the first defendant vessel be arrested by a Warrant of Arrest of this Court and, thereafter, the same be sold through Sheriff of Mumbai by orders and directions of this Court so also the sale proceeds be appropriated to the satisfaction of plaintiffs claim in the suit. The decree in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants jointly and severally in the sum of Rs. 98,23,397 has been claimed. The plaint is lodged in this Court on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1997)2GLR1745
S.D. Dave, J.1. Proceedings on hand call upon me to answer two Questions. They are:(1) Whether the High Court of Gujarat, in exercise of its Admiralty Jurisdiction, has the POWER and/or JURISDICTION to order the arrest of a Sister Ship?(2) Whether M.V. Giurgeni a Foreign Flag Vessel presently in the Port and Harbour of Kandla (Gujarat) can be said to be the Sister Ship of M.V. Kalo, which admittedly is not in Coastal Waters of the State of Gujarat or the Territorial Waters of India?2. These Questions arise because of the filing of the Admiralty Suit, by the plaintiffs. The Shipping Corporation of India Limited, valued at Rs. 2,32,75,640-00 and the presentation of a Civil Application for the arrest of M.V. Giurgeni, the Orders of Arrest duly executed and the Notice of Motion taken out by the other side praying for the vacation of the said Orders for Want of Jurisdiction.3. The suit by the plaintiffs is an action in Rem for, or a suit in Damages. The damages are being claimed on the basi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1915Cal681,(1915)ILR42Cal85,28Ind.Cas.463
Jenkins, C.J.1. On the 4th June 1910, a company called the Shalimar Works, Limited, instituted a suit in rem against the vessel, Clan Macintosh, for an amount alleged to be due to them for that which is described in the plaint in this suit and has throughout been treated as maritime necessaries.2. On the same day the vessel was arrested, and she thenceforth remained under arrest until her release on the 31st January 1912, the suit in rem having been dismissed two days earlier.3. On the 4th June 1912, the present suit was instituted on the ordinary original side of this Court claiming damages for the wrongful arrest.4. In the plaint it is alleged that the plaintiff company is the owner of the ship, that the defendant company instituted the suit in rem 'falsely alleging therein that a sum of Rs. 89,187-12 was due to the defendant company for maritime necessaries supplied to the said vessel and maliciously and without reasonable or probable cause procured a warrant of arrest from the said...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1992Bom86; 1991(3)BomCR574
ORDER1. By this notice of motion the first Defendant prays that the suit be dismissed against it and pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the amount of Rs. 3,12,000/- deposited by the first Defendant as security for releasing the first Defendant from arrest, be returned to the agents of the first Defendant together with accrued interest. It would be necessary to state the salient facts to appreciate the contentions raised by the first Defendant by the present notice of motion.2. The plaintiffs filed the present suit on 16th February, 1991 (Sic), claiming a sum of Rs. 3,11,950.45 Ps. with the interest and costs against the first Defendant vessel M. V. Seacrest Achiever. The plaintiffs allege that due to the failure and negligence of the first Defendant they had been required to incur demurrage and detention charges aggregating to the aforesaid sum which was a claim enforceable against the first Defendant in the admiralty jurisdiction of the Court. The plaintiffs moved for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1997Delhi31; 1996(38)DRJ690
ORDER1. This is an application under Order 39, Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking vacation of order dated April 9, 1996, passed in I.A. No. 3205/96 in Suit No. 805/96, and for directing the release of the vessel 'M.V. Pranburi'.2. In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties it will be necessary to first notice the facts as given in the plaint.3. The plaintiff/non-applicant is the Stale Trading Corporation of India, while the Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh is the first defendant. The plaintiff entered into a contract for sale of Non-Basmati Par Boiled Rice with the first defendant on July 19, 1995 (for short the principal contract'). By virtue of this agreement the plaintiff agreed to sell to the first defendant 50,000 MT (+ 5%) of non-Basmati for Boiled Rice of Indian origin. The plaintiff suppliedand the first defendant received a total quantity of about 40,000 MT of the rice. For the remaining quantity of the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. The Plaintiff's claim in the suit is that of unpaid seller. The Plaintiff claims to have supplied bunkers to the 2nd defendant vessel at the instance of and pursuant to a Purchase Order dated 14th November, 2012 issued by Defendant No.3. The counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that an oral order for the supplies was placed by Defendant No.3. At that time Defendant No.3 was the Bareboat charterer of the 2nd defendant vessel. The Bareboat Charter Party dated 29th June, 2012 was entered into between the Defendant No.3 and the owners of Defendant No.2 vessel, viz., Master and Commander AS, Norway. The counsel also submitted that Defendant No.3 was located in the same office building as the Plaintiff and they had past dealings. The oral order which was given on 12th November, 2012 was confirmed subsequently in writing. 2. Based on this requisition, on or about 14th November, 2012, the Plaintiff supplied 669.416 M.T. of MGO (bunkers) to the 2nd defendant vessel when she was at Singapore. ...
Tag this Judgment!