IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Shah
Appellants: Kamalakar Mahadev Bhagat
Vs.
Respondent: Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd.
A.F.O. No. 113 of 1958
Decided On: 05.08.1960
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: S.S. Rangnekar and Dalvi, Advs., i/b, F.S. Parekh and Co., Attorneys
For Respondents/Defendant: F.S. Nariman and B. Zaiwalla, Advs., i/b, Payne and Co., Attorneys
The Bombay High Court held that the City Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to hear a suit for damages caused by a collision at sea because the subject matter fell within the exclusive admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court. The court analyzed the history and development of admiralty jurisdiction in England and India, noting that the High Court of Bombay inherited the same admiralty jurisdiction as the High Court of Admiralty in England under the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act of 1890. The court found that the High Court of Admiralty had exclusive jurisdiction over torts committed on the high seas, including damage caused by a ship, and that this jurisdiction was not affected by the Admiralty Court Acts of 1840 and 1861, which expanded the jurisdiction of the High Court of Admiralty but were not extended to India. The court also rejected the argument that an action in personam for damages caused by a ship on the high seas could be brought in the Ordinary Original Side of the High Court, holding that such actions were exclusively cognizable by the Admiralty Side of the High Court.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, a fisherman, filed a suit in the City Civil Court, Bombay, against the defendant company, owners of a cargo boat, for damages caused to his country craft in a collision at sea. The defendant company contended that the City Civil Court lacked jurisdiction, as the suit fell within the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court. The City Civil Court agreed and dismissed the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The Bombay High Court held that the City Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the suit because the subject matter fell within the exclusive admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court.
Issues: Whether the City Civil Court had jurisdiction to hear a suit for damages caused by a collision at sea.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court of Bombay has exclusive jurisdiction over torts committed on the high seas, including damage caused by a ship. This jurisdiction was not affected by the Admiralty Court Acts of 1840 and 1861, which expanded the jurisdiction of the High Court of Admiralty but were not extended to India. An action in personam for damages caused by a ship on the high seas cannot be brought in the Ordinary Original Side of the High Court, but is exclusively cognizable by the Admiralty Side of the High Court.
Final Decision: Appeal dismissed.
1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the learned Principal Judge of the City Civil Court, Bombay, on 29th April, 1958 rejecting the plaint filed by the plaintiff appellant in suit No. 2957 of 1954 in the City Civil Court at Bombay, holding that the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
2. The plaintiff-appellant is a fisherman and at the material time was the owner of a country craft ""Pandavi"". He filed the above suit against the defendant company as owners of a cargo boat ""Jalmanjari"" claiming a sum of Rs. 10,000/-as and by way of damages alleged to have been suffered by him on account of a collision at a distance of about 10 miles from Worli Sea Shore between the defendant companys said cargo boat ""Jalmanjari"" and the plaintiffs country craft ""Pandavi"", alleged to have occurred due to the negligence of the defendant company, its servants and agents on the said boat resulting in the breaking in two parts and sinking of the plaintiffs country craft.
3. The plaintiff alleged in the plaint that the defendant company was the employer of the Master and the crew o£ the said cargo boat ""Jalmanjari"", that on or about 11th January, 1954, his country craft ""Pandavi"" along with the other fishing country crafts belonging to different fishermen from Worli Village left Worli harbour for deep sea fishing, that he and the other fishermen had gone about 10 miles out on the sea from the shore where the depth of the sea was on an average about 9 fathoms, and that several fishing stakes were provided for tying up country crafts engaged in deep sea fishing at that distance, each stake being about 120 feet in length and 2 1/2 feet in circumstance at the top and showing above sea level about 24 feet during high tide and 36 feet during low tide. It was further alleged that on the said date the said ""Pandavi"" along with the Other country crafts reached the place near the stakes at about 4 P.M. and the Plaintiff and the other fishermen slatted spreading nets and their fishing operations at about 7 P. M. The plaintiff then alleged that his country craft and those of others were tied up to the fishing stakes and that they were at their proper place and well outside the prohibited area. He further alleged that all the fishing crafts including his own were showing lights, that it was a moon-lit night, that the weather was clear and the visibility was good, and that the tide being low at that Mine the fishing stakes were showing about 36 feet about the sea level, so that they could be distinctly visible from a distance. The Plaintiff then went on to allege that at about 9-30 P.M. the defendant companys cargo boat ""Jalmanjari"" which was then coming from north-west direction deviated from its proper course and it was navigated so rashly and negligently and with such excessive speed that it suddenly came in line with the fishing stakes without giving any warning. When the defendant companys cargo boat was at about 100 yards away, the plaintiff alleged, the occupants of the country crafts which were tied up to the fishing stakes began shouting and warned the defendant companys cargo boat of the danger of collision. The defendant companys cargo boat, however, did not Stop its engines or attempt to reduce its speed and negligently proceeded at great speed and ran into three fishing stakes and broke the same, proceeded further in a rash and negligent manner and at excessive speed and dashed forcibly against the plaintiffs country craft Pandavi"" with the result that all the occupants of ""Pandavi"" were thrown off into the sea and ""Pandavi"" itself broke into two pieces and sank. It was alleged that in spite of it, the defendant companys cargo boat failed to stop and without caring to see what had happened proceeded further on its voyage with the same excessive speed. The plaintiff then alleged that the occupants of ""Pandavi who were thrown off into the sea on (sic)ount of the collision were later picked
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.