Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: merchant shipping amendment act 2002 section 14 amendment of section 317 Sorted by: recent Court: mumbai Page 1 of about 554 results (0.215 seconds)

Apr 07 2016 (HC)

Unitech Texmech Private Limited Vs. ATE Enterprises Private Limited

Court : Mumbai

..... of maharashtra and other states. she submits that though clause 8.3 of the said agreement was amended in view of the suggestion made by the indian merchants' chamber, the respondent had categorically agreed that the venue of the arbitration was amended from pune to mumbai, as provided in clause 8.3 of the selling agency agreement dated 22nd ..... as the judgment of the supreme court in case of bharat aluminium company (supra) relied upon by the petitioner is concerned, the supreme court in case of harmony innovation shipping limited (supra) after adverting to the judgment in case of bhatia international vs. bulk trading s.a. (2002) 4 scc 105 and the judgment of the supreme court ..... january, 2010. 12. it is submitted that there was no other amendment to the said agreement as canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. she submits that the parties had agreed for change of venue under section 20 of the said act and not the change of seat or place of arbitration. she submits that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 05 2015 (HC)

Hanwha General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. m.v. ELENI (IMO No.9460277)

Court : Mumbai

..... or have ratified or have accepted the instruments concluded in the conventions on limitation of liability for maritime claims. india has, infact included it in its domestic law merchant shipping act, 1958, as amended, not the entire provisions of one such convention as explained later, but most of it. 4. on 19th november 2013, the owners of m.v. ..... or not because the order dated 22nd october 2014 is silent in that regard. 22. submissions were also made on the applicability of part xa of the merchant shipping act, 1958 (ms act) to this suit. the plaintiff's counsel contended that it was applicable, whereas the defendant's counsel submitted that it is not applicable because it contemplates ..... present case, the high court which is administering the fund is the hong kong high court. the definition of high court in section 3(15) of the merchant shipping act is not applicable because section 3(15) refers to the high court in relation to a vessel. the high court in relation to a vessel may not be .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 03 2014 (HC)

Rekha Agarwal and Another Vs. Anil Agarwal and Others

Court : Mumbai

..... ) to give particulars of fraud and forgery and a permission to the claimant (i.e. respondent no.1 herein) to amend his pleadings after such particulars were furnished. 3. the basis of the application under section-16 was stated to be as ..... signed by all three partners and sent to itc limited, the principal with whom the firm had an agreement for distribution-ship; that after disputes arose between the parties, the petitioner filed a false police complaint that her signature on the letter ..... of the court to refer the disputes to arbitration and there is no absolute bar for such reference. 7. mr. merchant, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the issue of forgery and fabrication of ..... held and directions were issued by the arbitrator. thereafter, respondent no.1 filed an application under section-16 of the act contesting the jurisdiction of the arbitrator to entertain the counter-claim. the alternative prayers claimed in that application were (a) .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 27 2014 (HC)

Capt. P.C. Acharya Vs. the Official Liquidator as the Liquidator of M/ ...

Court : Mumbai

..... the said vessel. according to him, the said vessel cannot be sold before his wages are paid in view of section 42(2a) read with section 148 of the merchant shipping act, 1958 (said act). 3. the question that falls for consideration is whether the provisions of section 42(2a) apply to the sale of a vessel, conducted by a court. 4. the ..... sections 42 and 51 keeping in mind the above legislative intent. 10. after the amendment act 68 of 1993, section 42 reads as under:- 42. transfer of ships or shares (1) no person shall transfer or acquire any indian ship or any share or interest therein (amendment act 68 of 1993, sec 3 (w.r.e.f. 27-10-1993) [at any time during ..... sections 44, 46 and 51. 17. section 51 was also amended by the amendment act 68 of 1993. section 51 as amended reads as under: (amendment act 68 of 1993, sec 3 (w.r.e.f. 27-10-1993) [51. rights of mortgagee (1) where there is only one registered mortgagee of a ship or share, he shall be entitled to recover the amount due .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 11 2014 (HC)

M/S. Universal Marine and Another Vs. M/T Hartati and Another

Court : Mumbai

..... need not mean he is the registered owner. on the contrary registered owner or the owner in whose name the ship is registered would also be the beneficial owner unless otherwise proved. s. 25 (b) and (c) of the merchant shipping act, 1958 makes it very clear. it reads as under: 25. register book. every registrar shall keep a ..... had obtained ex-parte order of arrest on the ground that defendant no. 2 vessel owned the defendant no. 1 vessel and several other vessels. this was later amended to state that defendant no. 2 along with blt are the owners/beneficial owners/the entity which are in various fields (including defendant no. 1 vessel) formed part ..... effected upon the defendant no. 1 and her sister vessels...........? (emphasis supplied) 6 after obtaining the order of arrest, the plaintiffs had on leave being granted amended para 2 and the amended para 2 reads as under:- the defendant no. 1 vessel is a foreign flagged vessel which is currently in port and harbour mumbai. the defendant no .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 05 2013 (HC)

M/S. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Another Vs. Kishore L. To ...

Court : Mumbai Goa

..... the water which proves that the wreck was not at all removed or disintegrated. he read out the provisions of part xiii on wreck and salvage contained in the merchant shipping act, 1958, in support of his contention that there is no need to remove the wreck which lies outside the port area. he pointed out that the defendant no. ..... over the wreck. however, the above facts have not been pleaded in the written statement of the defendant no. 1. i am of the view that the amendment to the written statement therefor is necessary for the purpose of determination of the real controversy between the parties and for the ends of justice. i am also satisfied ..... on behalf of the defendant no. 2. 12. mr. afonso, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant no. 1, in the first instance, submitted that the amendment to the written statement, as prayed for by the defendant no. 1 is necessary for determination of real controversy between the parties and that since evidence has already come on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 04 2012 (HC)

Pacific BasIn Handymax (Uk) Ltd. Vs. Ashapura Minechem Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

..... or with rule b proceedings in new york contending that the c.o.a. could not be performed since the dg shipping had by letter dated 3rd november, 2008 refused to grant respondent's licence as contemplated under the merchant shipping act, 1958. on 11th november, 2008, the respondents filed special civil suit (58 of 2008) before the district court in ..... the provisions under order 39 rule 11 of code of civil procedure, 1908 is not applicable to the present proceedings is concerned, it is clear that there was amendment to order 39 carried out in maharashtra. rule 11 of order 39 provides that if any party is refrained from doing anything during the pendency of the suit or ..... may hear the party in defence, as the case may be, if the party that has been responsible for the default or contravention or breach as aforesaid makes amends for the default or contravention of breach to the satisfaction of the courts. provided that before passing any order under this sub-rule, notice shall be given to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 04 2012 (HC)

Pacific BasIn Handymax (Uk) Ltd. Vs. Ashapura Minechem Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

..... or with rule b proceedings in new york contending that the c.o.a. could not be performed since the dg shipping had by letter dated 3rd november, 2008 refused to grant respondent's licence as contemplated under the merchant shipping act, 1958. on 11th november, 2008, the respondents filed special civil suit (58 of 2008) before the district court in ..... the provisions under order 39 rule 11 of code of civil procedure, 1908 is not applicable to the present proceedings is concerned, it is clear that there was amendment to order 39 carried out in maharashtra. rule 11 of order 39 provides that if any party is refrained from doing anything during the pendency of the suit or ..... may hear the party in defence, as the case may be, if the party that has been responsible for the default or contravention or breach as aforesaid makes amends for the default or contravention of breach to the satisfaction of the courts. provided that before passing any order under this sub-rule, notice shall be given to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 27 2009 (HC)

Mr. Allan S.F. Falerio Vs. State of Goa Through the Chief Secretary, S ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2010(112)BomLR7

..... the petitioner.14. admittedly, a coc is granted in terms of part vi of the merchant shipping act, 1958 which part in terms of section 75 thereof applies to:(a) every sea going indian ship fitted with mechanical means of propulsion wherever it is; and(b) every foreign ship while it is at port or place in india.section 75-a(b) of the said ..... convention to mean the international convention on standards of training, certification and watchkeeping for seafarers, 1978, signed at london on 7th day of july, 1978, as amended from time to time. section 76 of the said act, inter alia, further provides that every indian ship, when going to sea from any port or place, shall be provided with officers duly certified under this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 11 2008 (HC)

Indian National Shipowners Association Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (2009)222CTR(Bom)234; [2009]16STJ175; 2009[13]STR235

..... tax was introduced for the first time in the chapter v of the finance act, 1994 in the year 1997 the definition of the term 'taxable service' was substantially amended. according to the petitioners, the indian shipping industry is obliged by statute under the provisions of the merchant shipping act, 1958 and in terms of the normal conditions of trade, to obtain and ..... ) is squarely applicable to rule 2(1)(d)(iv), which is relied on in this case. it appears that it is first time when the act was amended and section 66a was inserted by finance act, 2006 w.e.f. 18-4-2006, the respondents got legal authority to levy service tax on the recipients of the taxable service. now, ..... . the learned counsel submits that provision of rule 2(d)(iv) quoted above is invalid, because it is contrary to the scheme of the act. on 16-6-2005, an amendment was made to the act also, by which an explanation was added below section 65(105) which explanation reads as under:explanation - for the removal of doubts, it .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //