Back
R.M.SAHAI, T.K.THOMMEN
M. V. Elisabeth – Appellant
Versus
Harwan Investment And Trading Private LTD. , Hanoekar House, Swatontapeth, Vasco-de-gama, Goa: Harwan Investment And Trading Company – Respondent
Key Points: - The High Courts in India possess admiralty jurisdiction as a continuation of colonial framework, and this jurisdiction is not strictly limited to the Admiralty Court Act of 1861 but extended by the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890 and related statutes, as applicable to India (discussion of Act lineage and Art. 225, 372, 215) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The question before the Court was whether the Andhra Pradesh High Court could maintain an action in rem against a foreign vessel for outward cargo, and the Court held that such jurisdiction exists and that arrest of the foreign ship in Indian waters is permissible to satisfy maritime claims arising from carriage of goods (outward cargo) under the 1890 Act and subsequent Indian statutes (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The Court emphasizes that admiralty jurisdiction extends to all ships within Indian waters and to all claims wherever arising, including those related to carriage of goods by sea, not limited to inward cargo, and is not frozen to 1861 Act restrictions (discussion of 1890 Act, 1920-1981 expansions) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The case concludes with dismissal of the SLP and restoration of transferred case to be heard on merits in the Andhra Pradesh High Court, reinforcing continuation of admiralty jurisdiction and arrest power within Indian waters [103] (!) . - The judgment discusses international law context and the principle that arrest of ships is a tool to secure jurisdiction and security for claims, not seizure in execution, and that Indian courts may rely on international conventions as persuasive but not strictly binding statutory requirements in absence of specific Indian legislation (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT
THOMMEN, J.:—We grant leave in SLP(C) No. 10542 of 1985 which arises from the order of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court affirming the finding of the learned single Judge that the respondents suit against the appellants was maintainable and that the High Court was competent to try the same in exercise of its admiralty jurisdiction. The Transferred Case No. 27 of 1987 the appeal filed by defendants 1 and 2 against the judgment of the learned single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court decreeing the suit. The case stood transferred to this Court pursuant to this Courts order dated 25-11-1986.
2. By our Order dated August 28,1991 we allowed Civil Appeal No. 3392 of 1991 filed by the 3rd defendant against the order of the High Court dismissing its petition for condonation of delay in presenting O.S.A.S.R. No. 39789 of 1988 in the High Court. We held that the appeal filed by the 3rd defendant had to be heard on the merits particularly on the question of law regarding the liability of the agent.
3. We shall now deal with the appeal arising from SLP(C) No. 10542 of 1985 where the only question is whether the learned Judges of the High Court have rightly held tha
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
