Skip to main content

Admiralty Court Doesn’t Have Power To Arrest Cargo On Board Ship For Unrelated Claim

In the matter of Pacific Gulf Shipping (Singapore) Pte Ltd v. SRK Chemicals Ltd & Anr,  the Bombay High Court has held that an admiralty court does not have jurisdiction to arrest cargo on board a ship for an unrelated claim.

Justice SC Gupte was hearing a notice of motion filed by the defendants (SRK Chemicals) seeking release of 20,000 MT of salt that was kept as security at an open yard in Kutch, Gujarat, in lieu of cargo belonging to the defendants.

Plaintiffs claimed cost of $221,656.29 for carriage of salt belonging to the defendants in their vessel MV Pacific Pioneer from the load port of Kandla to the discharge port of Chittagong, towards outstanding demurrage charges, interest and other costs.

In an ex-parte order by a single bench of the high court dated February 10, 2017, the defendant’s cargo was arrested. On February 13, following the defendant’s request, the order of arrest was vacated and 20,000 MT of industrial salt belonging to the defendants was taken as security in lieu of the arrested cargo.

Citing the International Arrest Convention of 1952 (for sea-going ships), the court noted that there were 17 claims under which arrest could be made, this list was revived with the Arrest Convention of 1999 and 6 new claims were added.

It was further noted that neither conventions “make any exception to the original principle that no property other than that directly connected to the cause of action could be arrested, save and except the case of a sister ship”.

Therefore, only that ship or cargo can be subjected to arrest, which is directly connected with the cause of action.

Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/admiralty-court-doesnt-power-arrest-cargo-board-ship-unrelated-claim-bombay-hc-read-judgment/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more