Skip to main content

Owners’ previous written consent must for sale or purchase of any vessel on which there is hypothecation/charge

In [Zatrix Ltd., v. MV Nikiforos, Gujarat High Court was hearing a suit filed for urgent interim orders, regarding the defendant vessel which was likely to sail away. The plaintiff has submitted that after entering into the agreement by the plaintiff and defendant for financing the purchase of three ships including the vessel in question, the plaintiff had advanced a sum of 800,000 USD, and that the plaintiff had a hypothecation/charge on the vessel and required a previous written consent for purchase or sale. However, the managers of the vessel including the defendant vessel, Marine Spirit Management addressed an email to the plaintiff informing about the sale of the vessel.

The plaintiff further contended that, since, no written consent of the plaintiff was obtained before the sale, the sale would be bad in law and null and void and would not affect the plaintiffs’ rights. Also, after resistance from the plaintiff all the defendants had approached for settlement and executed private settlement and release agreement for the defendant vessel, but the owners failed to adhere to their obligations, the result being that the plaintiffs’ entitled to all rights under the previous agreement.

This Court after taking into consideration all the circumstances and hearing all the contentions, permitted the direct service of warrant, directing the Registrar to issue a warrant for arrest of the vessel along with all her parts, with the condition that arrest be done within the Indian territorial waters.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more