2017 Supreme(SC) 943

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.F. Nariman, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, JJ.
CHRISOMAR CORPORATION – APPELLANT
VERSUS
MJR STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED – RESPONDENT
Decided On : 14-09-2017

IMPORTANT POINTS
Maritime lien attaches to the vessel. Claim for necessities supplied to a vessel does not become maritime lien.
Principles in international Conventions derived from the common law of nations are treated as part of the common law of India.
Relevant date for determination of ownership of vessel is the date of arrest and not the date of institution of suit.
Unless alterations in a contract go to the very root of the original contract and change its essential character, the original contract survives.
A provision in Indian law which is widely different from English law should be enforced according to its terms and not in accordance with English law.

Headnote:(a) Admiralty law – Maritime lien – Attaches to the vessel – Claim for necessities supplied to a vessel – Does not become maritime lien. (Para 22, 23)

       1993 Supp. (2) SCC 433: AIR 1993 SC 1014; (2003) 1 SCC 305; (2000) 8 SCC 278 – Relied upon

       1897 AC 97; (1852) 7 Moo PCC 267; 9 PD 356; 3 ALR 399 – Referred

       (2002) 2 CHN 280 – Cited with approval

       (b) Admiralty law – Principles in international Conventions derived from the common law of nations – Treated as part of the common law of India – Brussels Convention relating to the Arrest of Sea-Going Ships, 1992 followed (Para 25)

       1993 Supp. (2) SCC 433: AIR 1993 SC 1014 – Relied upon

       (c) Admiralty law – Maritime claim – Relevant date – For determination of ownership of vessel – On the date of arrest – Not on date of institution of suit. (Para 28)

       1976 1 SCR 847 – Relied upon

       (d) Contract Act – Sections 62 and 63 – Contract altered rescinded or substituted by fresh contract – Performance under original contract comes to an end – Alteration must go to the very root of the original contract and change its essential character – That not being the case instantly, the original contract continues to be part of modified contract – Section 63 would apply and not section 62 – Instantly, modified contract reinforces original contract as regards payment - Held there is no novation of original contract. (Para 33, 35, 36, 42)

       (1963) 2 SCR 168; (1963) 2 SCR 168; (2013) 8 SCC 131 – Relied upon

       AIR 1955 Cal 65 – Cited with approval

       [1932] All ER 494; (1889) LR 14 PD 64 (CA) – Referred

       (e) Interpretation of stature – External aid – Use of foreign judgments – A provision in Indian law – Widely different from English law – Should be enforced according to its terms and not in accordance with English law – Section 63, Contract Act. (Para 44)

       AIR 1942 Cal 87; AIR 1946 Bom 1 – Cited with approval

       (f) Contract Act – Section 63 – Settlement not made for any consideration – Not an independent agreement – Not exhausting original agreement – By order dated 25.1.2000, only the application in Suit No.1 of 2000 was dismissed, not the suit – Proceedings not put an end to – Original cause of action not superseded – Held, the original contract still subsists. (Para 46)

       (2003) SGHC 270 – Distinguished

       Facts of the Case:

       This case relates to admiralty law.

       The vessel, M.V. Nikolaos-S, was owned by one Third Element Enterprises, a Cyprus company, and was flying the flag of the Republic of Cyprus. The plaintiff in the admiralty suit, who is the appellant before us, supplied bunkers and other necessaries to the said vessel at the port of Durban on terms and conditions agreed between the parties in November, 1999. According to the plaintiff, the bunkers were received by the master of the vessel and services were rendered to the vessel as acknowledged by the master. The plaintiff raised invoices on 26.11.1999 for US$ 94,611.25 which have not yet been paid.

       When the vessel docked in the port of Haldia, the plaintiff filed admiralty suit No.1 of 2000 in the Calcutta High Court praying for an arrest of the vessel because, according to the plaintiff, the necessaries supplied to the vessel would not only amount to a maritime claim but would also be a maritime lien on the vessel. By an order dated 6.1.2000, the vessel was so arrested but nobody came forward for release of the vessel at that point of time. It is only on 25.1.2000 that learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff approached the learned admiralty Judge expressing the plaintiff’s intention not to proceed with the application for arrest as, according to him, the parties had reached an out of court settlement.

       It is only on 2.5.2000 that the vessel was re-arrested. The Court recorded that no payment had yet been made and that the claim of the plaintiff continued to remain unsatisfied. It is this re-arrest that is the bone of contention between the parties in the present matter.

       The single Judge to a suit filed by respondent no.1 against Fairsteel Corporation in which respondent no.1 prayed for a decree for rescission of the agreement for sale dated 21.1.2000, as also for cancellation of the said agreement, and perpetual injunction restraining Fairsteel from claiming any money under the Letter of Credit furnished by respondent no.1. It recorded that the said suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 12.10.2004, and there was no concluded sale in favour of respondent no.1.

       The Division Bench reversed the single Judge’s decision and held that the suit was liable to be dismissed.

       Finding of the Court:

       Impugned judgment is not sustainable.

       Result: Appeal allowed.