1998 Supreme(Bom) 104
Bombay High Court
S.S.NIJJAR
Osprey Underwriting Agencies - Appellant
Versus
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation - Respondent
Decided On : 02/17/1998
Advocates:
G. A. Rebello with Ms. Easter Maeker, for Petitioners; R. A. Dada, Addl. Solicitor General with Vivek Divan and Bhalwal i/b M/s. Vyas Bhalwal, for Respondents.
Admiralty Suits are proceedings in rem and any findings given therein will be conclusive upon the world, and therefore, disputes raised in an Admiralty Suit cannot be referred to arbitration.
Headnote:
ADMIRALTY - ARBITRATION - JURISDICTION - WHETHER DISPUTES RAISED IN ADMIRALTY SUIT CAN BE REFERRED TO ARBITRATION - HELD, NO - ADMIRALTY SUIT IS A PROCEEDING IN REM AND ANY FINDINGS GIVEN THEREIN WILL BE CONCLUSIVE UPON THE WORLD.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, an insurance company, issued a certificate of insurance in favor of the respondents, a statutory body, covering a vessel that capsized and sank within the precincts of the Port and Harbour of Bombay. The respondents issued a notice of abandonment to their hull and machinery underwriters, which was not accepted as the claim was treated as a constructive total loss. The respondents also had a protection and indemnity policy with the petitioners and made a claim under this policy, which was settled. The respondents issued a deed of release, irrevocably abandoning their right, title, and interest in the vessel. The petitioners appointed salvors to salvage the wreck, who were approved by the Bombay Port Trust authorities. However, disputes arose between the salvors and the sub-contractors, leading to the termination of the contract between them. The wreck continued to lie in the Port precincts, and the petitioners terminated the contract with the salvors. The salvors filed an Admiralty Suit against the vessel, the petitioners, and their agents, seeking a declaration of ownership of the vessel and an order to secure their rights. The Court passed a decree in terms of the prayer clauses, but the salvors took no steps to remove the wreck. The Port authorities demanded a security deposit from the petitioners, the respondents, and the salvors for the removal of the wreck. The petitioners disputed this demand, but without prejudice to their rights, undertook to remove the wreck, which was rejected by the Port authorities. The petitioners filed a contempt petition against the salvors for committing contempt of the Court's order, and the respondents filed an Admiralty Suit seeking a declaration that the deed of release is valid and payment of the security deposit in the event they have to pay the same to the port authorities.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the disputes raised in the Admiralty Suit cannot be referred to arbitration. The Court relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in M. V. Elisabeth v. Harwan Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd. Goa and Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka v. Jasjit Singh, which held that Admiralty Suits are proceedings in rem and any findings given therein will be conclusive upon the world. The Court further held that the arbitration clause in the insurance policy is widely worded and would encompass all the disputes raised in the Admiralty Suit, but since the Admiralty Suit is a proceeding in rem, it cannot be referred to arbitration.
Issues: Whether the disputes raised in the Admiralty Suit can be referred to arbitration.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the disputes raised in the Admiralty Suit cannot be referred to arbitration because Admiralty Suits are proceedings in rem and any findings given therein will be conclusive upon the world. The Court relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in M. V. Elisabeth v. Harwan Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd. Goa and Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka v. Jasjit Singh, which held that Admiralty Suits are proceedings in rem and any findings given therein will be conclusive upon the world.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners seeking to refer the disputes to arbitration and stay the proceedings in the Admiralty Suit.
ORDER :- The petitioners are a company organised under the laws of the United Kingdom and have its office at 24, Lime Street, London. The respondents are a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and a statutory body constituted under S. 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959, having principal/registered office at Tel Bhavan, Dehra Dun and regional office at Vasudhara, Bandra (East), Bombay 400 051. According to the petitioners they had issued a certificate of insurance in favour of the respondents covering the vessel called M. V. Sindhu VII. On 25th July, 1995 the vessel Sindhu VII (hereinafter referred to as "the vessel") capsized and sank within the precincts of the Port and Harbour of Bombay. The respondents issued a notice of abandonment to their hull and machinery underwriters viz. The National Insurance Company Limited. This notice was not accepted by the National Insurance Company as the claim was treated as constructive total loss. The respondents had also taken out a policy known as protection and indemnity policy with the petitioners. The respondents made a claim under this policy. The petitioners examined the claim of the respondents. The claim was settled according to the petitioners. In view of the settlement, the respondents issued a deed of release on 28th September, 1995. By virtue of this, the respondents irrevocably abandoned and relinquished their right, title and interest in the vessel. It was also agreed to pass all plans, stability data and all the technical details of the vessel to the salvors which may be engaged by the protection and indemnity underwriters. The petitioners appointed Abhay Ocean Projects Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the salvors") to salvage the wreck. On the same date, the wreck removal contract was entered into between the petitioners, the vessel, the respondents and the salvors. This contract was entered into in conjunction with the deed of release, mentioned earlier. The salvors had taken the responsibility in totality for removal of the wreck from the port precincts. They had also undertaken to comply with all the terms of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. These documents were executed for and on behalf of the petitioners by M/s. Allied Marine Consultants International. These documents were forwarded to the respondents on 10th October, 1995. They were also brought to the notice of Bombay Port Trust authorities. The salvors were permitted to continue with the salvage operations as they were approved by the Bombay Port Trust authorities. The salvors appointed M/s. Asiatic Salvors as sub-contractors. They were also approved by the Bombay Port Trust authorities. Thereafter the disputes arose between the salvors and the sub-contractors. Thus, the contract between the salvors and the sub-contractors came to be terminated on 29th March, 1996. The wreck continued to lie in the Port precincts. The petitioners also terminated the contract with the salvors on the same date. Aggrieved against this, the salvors filed an Admiralty Suit No. 61 of 1996. This suit was disposed of in terms of the Minutes of the Order. The suit had been filed by the salvors against the vessel, the petitioners and M/s. Allied Marine Consultants International. Prayers made in the suit were to the effect that this Court be pleased to order and declare that the plaintiffs (salvors) are the owners of the vessel and are entitled to the possession thereof without any let or hindrance by the second defendant (Osprey - petitioners herein) and third defendant (M/s. Allied Marine Consultants International). Prayer clause (i) was to the effect that the defendants be ordered and decreed to do all such acts, deeds and things as may be necessary to effectively secure the plaintiffs rights. As noticed above, second defendants were the petitioners and the third defendants were the Allied Marine Consultants International, agents of the petitioners. Oil and Natural Gas Commission were not impleaded in this su
Click Here to Read the rest of this document