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 : Karnataka
- 1 - WP No.8204 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R DATED THIS THE17H DAY OF MARCH, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT WRIT PETITION No.8204 OF2019(BDA) BETWEEN: JOSEPH RAJ, S/O SHANTAPPA, CHRISTIAN, AGED ABOUT63YEARS, R/AT NO.69, 3RD FLOOR, NANDI WEST, PLOT NO.301, 4TH BLOCK, 4TH STAGE, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 079. (SENIOR CITIZEN PRIORITY NOT CLAIMED) PETITIONER (BY SRI. KRISHNA SWAMY S .,ADVOCATE) AND:1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BDA) KUMARA PARK, BANGALORE-560 020. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.3. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP) J.C.ROAD, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.R SRINIVASA GOWDA., AGA FOR R1; SRI.B S KARTHIKEYAN.,ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) - 2 - WP No.8204 of 2019 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF SALE ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2617 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.18845/2013) SUNIL B. NAIK .Appellant versus GEOWAVE COMMANDER ..Respondent And: CIVIL APPEAL No.2618 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.18899/2013) JUDGMENT SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.1.2. Leave granted. A maritime claim against the charterer of a ship, who is not the de jure owner of the ship, and the endeavor to recover that amount through a restraint order against the ship owned by a third party has Page 1 of 57 given rise to the present appeal.3. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (for short ONGC) awarded a contract to one Reflect Geophysical Pte. Ltd., Singapore (for short Reflect Geophysical) for carrying out seismic survey operations off the coast of Gujarat near the Okha Port in the year 2012. In order to facilitate the carrying out of its obligations, Reflect Geophysical in turn entered into a Charter Party Agreement vide contract dated 29.6.2012 to chart...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1930 OF2008CHRISOMAR CORPORATION APPELLANT VERSUS MJR STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. ...RESPONDENT JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.1. The present appeal raises several interesting questions which arise in admiralty law. The vessel, M.V. Nikolaos-S, was owned by one Third Element Enterprises, a Cyprus company, and was flying the flag of the Republic of Cyprus. The plaintiff in the admiralty suit, who is the appellant before us, supplied bunkers and other necessaries to the said vessel at the port of Durban on terms and conditions agreed between the parties in November, 1999. According to the plaintiff, the bunkers were 1 received by the master of the vessel and services were rendered to the vessel as acknowledged by the master. The plaintiff raised invoices on 26.11.1999 for US$ 94,611.25 which have not yet been paid.2. When the vessel docked in the port of Haldia, the plaintiff filed admiralty suit No.1 of 20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE05h DAY OF JULY2016R BEFORE THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Civil Petition No.178/2016 Between: Sri. Rajkiran Sadanand Raikar, Son of Sadanand Krishna Raikar, Aged about 36 years, R/o. Sagarika Bungalow No.1, Hemnalini Appartments, Sarnaik Mal, Samrat Nagar, Kolhapur-416 008 Represented by his Power Agent, Wg.Cdr.I.S.Suri, Son of Late R.S.Suri, Aged about 69 years, 123, 6th Main, Malleswaram, Bengaluru-560 003. (By Smt. Sunita Srinivas, Advocate) And: Petitioner 1. Owners & Parties interested in the vessel M.V.Maharshi Mahatreya, Now lying within Indian Territorial waters In the port of Within the jurisdiction of this Honble Court.2. M/s. Varun Shipping Co., LTd., A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having Office at Laxmi building, 6, Shoorji Vallabh Das Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai -400 001. 2/13 Date of order:05.07.2016 in CP.No.178/2016 Rajkiran Sadanand Raikar Vs Owners & Parties interested in the Vessel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This Civil petition is filed under Sections 9 and 26 read with Order 7 Rule 1 of CPC, praying to direct the 2nd respondent to pay to the petitioner the sum of US$96460 together with future interest at 18% per annum for the subsequent period till the date of payment; for arrest and sale of the 1st respondent vessel M.V. Maharshi Mahatreya along with her Hull, gear, tackle, plant machinery, engine, apparel, furniture, fixtures, boats, stores, spares, bunkers and other paraphernalia, now lying at the Port of New Mangalore till sufficient security for the amounts claimed in prayer (i) above is furnished by the 2nd respondent and also for a direction to adjust the sale proceeds of the 1st respondent vessel M.V. Maharshi Mahatreya against the suit claim and etc.) 1. Learned counsels at the Bar submitted that the parties have arrived at a mutual settlement in the present case. 2. The present Civil petition was filed in original admiralty jurisdiction before this Court and initially, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. (Oral) 1. The above captioned OMP (I) (Comm.) 16/2015 is an application filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the petitioner concerning a hire agreement dated January 20, 2012, having an arbitration clause. Pleading that on account of non-payment of hire charges by the respondent the agreement in question has been determined, prayer made is to appoint a receiver to take possession of the assets which were hired. The subject matter of the dispute is concededly a Commercial dispute of the specified value as per the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Ordinance, 2015. 2. Being filed on November 20, 2015, after the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Ordinance, 2015 (hereinafter referred as 'Ordinance') was promulgated on October 23, 2015, which provided for Constitution of Commercial Court, Commercial Division and Commercial Appella...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. Almost 20 years ago, on or about 5th June 1994, there was a collision at the port of Marmagoa, Goa between m.v.Sanjeevani owned by the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant vessel owned by the 2nd defendant. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the collision was entirely due to the negligence and total and wanton dis-regard to good seamanship, collision regulations and other principles of safety and navigation by those manning the 1st defendant-vessel. The plaintiffs are claiming a sum of Rs.13,33,70,000/- together with interest @ 18% p.a. on the said amount. 2. The defendants filed written statement and counter claim on 30.4.1996, almost 19 years ago, in which it is alleged that the incident of collision was caused by acts or omissions of the plaintiffs-vessel m.v. Sanjeevani and her complement. In the alternative it is claimed that the incident was occasioned by act of God and/or perils of the sea. The defendants are counter claiming for a decree in the sum of Rs.10,95,330/- with inte...
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!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) No.536 OF2012GAURAV KUMAR BANSAL ... PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ... RESPONDENTS W I T H WRIT PETITION (C) No.26 OF2014RAJNI SINGH ... PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ... RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.1. These petitions seek directions to the Government of India to intervene and expedite release of Indian Seamen held hostages by the Somalian Pirates in the international waters on 29th March, 2010, 2nd March, 2012 and 10th May, 2012 and to frame anti-piracy guidelines. Writ Petition (C) No.536/2012 described as PIL, is claimed to be by way of legal aid to the captivated seamen at the instance of relatives of the victims, while Writ Petition (C) No.26/2014, also described as PIL, has been filed by the wife of one of the captivated seamen. Thus, though described as PIL, both the petitions seek enforcement of rights of individual seamen who are held hostages at hig...
Tag this Judgment!