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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Litigation history cannot be attributed to be an essential condition for acceptance of tender

In M.E. Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, the petitioner objected to the Municipal Corporation's decision to accept the tender of Respondents 8 to 10, when they had not disclosed the litigations history of last five years as required in the tender condition. The Bombay High Court agreeing with the decision of the Corporation held that disclosure of all litigation history is not an essential condition for the tender. It is merely ancillary or subsidiary to the main tender conditions. Prescribing such a condition, calling upon a bidder to provide litigation history is aimed to enable the municipal corporation to take a decision on the acceptability of a tender/bid by examining issues prejudicial to the interest of the municipal corporation, in the context of the tender. There can be no other purpose for prescribing such a condition. It also cannot be countenanced, that by prescribing such a condition, the municipal corporation would expect a bi...
Post a Comment
Read more