The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, as a Colonial Court of Admiralty, had the same jurisdiction as the High Court of Admiralty in England in 1890, including the jurisdiction to entertain claims for damage to cargo under Section VI of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, even if the goods were not imported into India or carried for delivery in India.

Headnote:
ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION - EXTENT AND SCOPE - COLONIAL COURTS OF ADMIRALTY ACT, 1890 - ADMIRALTY COURT ACT, 1861 - SECTION VI - JURISDICTION OVER CLAIMS FOR DAMAGE TO CARGO - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff, Mrs. Sahida Ismail, filed a suit in the Admiralty and Vice-admiralty Jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court against the steamship Petko R. Salvejkov, its Indian agents, and the consignees of the cargo in Colombo. The plaintiff alleged that the ship delivered the cargo to the consignees without production of the bill of lading and without her authorization, resulting in a loss of Rs. 2,34,997/-. The defendants filed a notice of motion seeking to set aside the warrant for arrest of the ship and the guarantee executed by their agents, contending that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, as a Colonial Court of Admiralty, had the same jurisdiction as the High Court of Admiralty in England in 1890, when the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act was passed. This jurisdiction was exercised pursuant to the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, particularly Section VI, which conferred jurisdiction over claims for damage to cargo imported into England or Wales. The court interpreted Section VI liberally, relying on precedents such as the Cap Blanco and Pieve Superior cases, and held that it was not necessary for the goods to be imported into India or carried for delivery in India to attract the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court. As the cargo in the present case was loaded in Bombay and carried into an Indian port, even though its destination was Colombo, the court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit under Section VI of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in exercise of its admiralty jurisdiction, had the same jurisdiction as the High Court of Admiralty in England in 1890. 2. Whether Section VI of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, conferred jurisdiction over claims for damage to cargo imported into India or carried for delivery in India. 3. Whether the court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit in exercise of its admiralty jurisdiction, considering that the cargo was loaded in Bombay and carried into an Indian port, even though its destination was Colombo.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890, and the Colonial Courts of Admiralty (India) Act, 1891, conferred upon the High Court of Judicature at Bombay the same admiralty jurisdiction as the High Court of Admiralty in England in 1890. 2. Section VI of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, conferred jurisdiction over claims for damage to cargo imported into England or Wales, and this jurisdiction was interpreted liberally to include cases where the goods were carried into an English port for orders or in pursuance of a contract of affreightment with multiple ports of call. 3. The court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit in exercise of its admiralty jurisdiction, as the cargo was loaded in Bombay and carried into an Indian port, even though its destination was Colombo. This interpretation was consistent with the liberal construction given to Section VI of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, in previous cases.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the defendants' notice of motion, holding that it had jurisdiction to entertain the suit in exercise of its admiralty jurisdiction. The defendants were ordered to file their written statement by November 1, 1971, and the parties were directed to make their respective affidavits of documents and undergo inspection.

JUDGMENT - 1. The Plaintiff Mrs. Sahida Ismail has filed this suit in this Court in its Admiralty and Vice-admiralty Jurisdiction. In this suit, the steamship Petko R. Salvejkov is made defendant No.1; the Indian Agents of the owners of the ship Messrs. J.M.Baxi Co. are made defendant No.2 and the consignees of the cargo in Colombo are made defendant No.3. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have taken out the present notice of motion for an order that the warrant for arrest issued by this Court on June 8, 1971 be superseded and set aside: that the guarantee executed by the second defendants in favour of the Admiralty Registrar on June 8, 1971 be cancelled and returned to the second defendants and that it may be held that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in exercise of its admiralty and vice admiralty jurisdiction.

2. The facts on the basis of which the notice of motion is argued are not as all in controversy. On December 17, 1970 the plaintiff consigned a cargo of 569 Metric Tonnes of Big Onions to the third Defendants and the said cargo was shipped on Board per, Defendant No.1 ship from Bombay, Defendant No.2 issued a bill of lading for the cargo on defendant No.1 ship. The bill of lading and other documents were negotiated by the plaintiff through the Indian Overseas Bank with the Peoples Bank at Colombo, Under the bill of landing, the cargo was to be delivered against the documents which had been negotiated with the Peoples Bank at Colombo. It is the case of the plaintiff that the first defendant without production of the bill of lading and without any authority from the plaintiff or from the Peoples Bank at Colombo delivered the cargo tot he third defendants. The case of the plaintiff is that such delivery is in contravention of the terms and conditions of the Bill of lading and, she has suffered a loss to the extent of Rs. 2,34,997/- being the value of the cargo. The suit is filed to recover this amount of loss on the ground that the claim in the suit is a maritime claim against the first defendant for which the plaintiff has a maritime lien over the first defendant. It is the contention of the plaintiff that she is entitled to have the first defendant-ship arrested for satisfaction of the claim in the suit. The plaintiff has also obtained leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent prior to the institution of the suit.

3. The plaint was presented to this Court on June 7, 1971, during the Summer Vacation,. On that very day Vaidya. J. after hearing the Counsel for the plaintiff and the Attorneys of defendant No.1 ship issued a warrant for arrest of defendant No.1-ship and directed that the said warrant should not be executed against defendant No.1- ship in case the security as therein provided was furnished to the satisfaction of the Admiralty Registrar. The sip was arrested that every night. On the next day, on June 8, 1971 defendant No.1 through its attorneys moved the Court by raising a preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of this Court. On that day, it appeared under protest. The Attorneys of defendants No.1 and defendant No.2 undertook to the Court that the guarantee in the sum of Rs. 2,45,000/- would be duly executed by partner of defendant No.2 in the course of the day and/or latest by the next day. In view of the said undertaking, by consent of parties, this Court ordered that defendant No.1-ship should re released forthwith. This order was passed by this Court without prejudice to the contention of defendant No.1 that the Admiralty Court at Bombay had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit or arrest the ship during the pendency thereof.

4. On July 8, 1971 defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have taken out this Notice of Motion for the reliefs set out above. It is inter alia stated in the affidavit in support by Kishore Prabhakar Dalvi. that after the cargo of onions was put on board as defendant No.1 ship, it was to proceed to Colombo via Bedi and Karachi. The contention in this affidavit in support is that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1971 Supreme(Bom) 94

Cases Referred (1)