JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J.:---I shall dispose of two notices of motion taken out by defendant No. 2 viz., World Tanker Carriers Corporation (W.T.C.C.) by this order. By means of Notice of Motion No. 2971 of 1998 it is prayed by W.T.C.C. that suit be dismissed. This prayer primarily is made under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code based on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction. By another Notice of Motion No. 1637 of 1998, W.T.C.C. prays that the plaint be struck off as being unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous and vexatious and also being an abuse of process of the Court under Order 6, Rule 16 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and for quashing as being contemptuous abuse of the process of the Court and malicious. In the alternative it is prayed that the plaintiffs-SNP Shipping Services (Pvt.) Ltd., (for short 'S.N.P.' Shipping') be directed to withdraw this suit.

2. S.N.P. Shipping are the plaintiffs in Admiralty Suit No. 58 of 1998 filed under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (Act of 1958) for constituting the limitation fund for limiting their liability against claims arising out of a collision between the vessels m.v. YA MAWLAYA which was at the relevant time managed by them and m.t. NEW WORLD owned by W.T.C.C. which occurred in the international waters approximately 200 nautical miles off the coast of Portugal on 20th/21st December, 1994 and further consequential reliefs.

3. Prior to this suit, admittedly the S.N.P. Shipping filed the suit before this Court which was registered as Admiralty Suit No. 26 of 1995 and in that suit the very prayer was made for setting up of limitation fund inter alia other ancillary reliefs. In the said suit W.T.C.C. took out a notice of motion challenging the jurisdiction of this Court, though unsuccessful before this Court, W.T.C.C.'s objection ultimately was upheld by the Apex Court. The question whether Bombay High Court has jurisdiction in the matter of constitution of Limitation Fund in the facts and circumstances was examined elaborately by the Apex Court in the light of provisions of Act of 1958, Letters Patent, Code of Civil Procedure and the Private International Law. The judgment of the Apex Court is reported in 1999(1) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)196, (World Tanker Carrier Corporation v. SNP, Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. and others)1. As a general proposition of law, the Apex Court, about the courts having jurisdiction over Limitation Act, in paragraph 32 of the report ruled thus :

"32. A limitation action as in the present case, falls under the High Court's Admiralty jurisdiction. But a limitation action, though filed in Admiralty, is not against a vessel. It is a protective action against claims which may be filed by others against owner of the vessel in admiralty jurisdiction. Therefore, a plea of limitation can be taken as a defence by the owner in an action in admiralty filed against him by the claimant against him and his ship. Hence, the Court having jurisdiction to entertain an admiralty action against the vessel of the owner has jurisdiction to set up a limitation fund for the owner. Similarly, if the owner initiates the "defensive" action in limitation, the Court which has jurisdiction to entertain a liability claim will have jurisdiction to entertain the limitation action. If a liability claim is already filed, that Court will have jurisdiction over limitation action also. But claims may be several, and they may be actually filed or may be apprehended. Any Court where such a claim is filed or is likely to be filed will have jurisdiction to entertain a limitation action. The Court of domicile of the owner and the ship is a Court where such a claim is likely to be filed. Therefore, that Court will also have jurisdiction. Out of these, the owner has the option to choose his Court for filing a limitation action."

4. The Supreme Court thus, ruled that in respect of limitation action the following courts shall have jurisdiction;

(i) The Court hav

Click Here to Read the rest of this document