Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. B. Mukharji
JAYASWAL SHIPPING COMPANY - Appellant
Versus
S. S. LEELAVATI - Respondent
Suit 6 Of 1953
Decided On : DECEMBER 23, 1953
ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION - CLAIM FOR NECESSARIES - DOMICILE OF SHIPOWNER - INTERPRETATION OF "DOMICILED IN ENGLAND OR WALES" IN SECTION 5 OF ADMIRALTY COURT ACT, 1861 - APPLICATION TO INDIAN CONTEXT - CONFLICT OF JURISDICTION BETWEEN ADMIRALTY COURTS IN INDIA - ONE INDIAN DOMICILE - RATIONALE OF ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION - AVAILABILITY OF ORDINARY CIVIL COURTS REMEDY.
Fact of the Case:
Jayaswal Shipping Company, a registered partnership, instituted an admiralty action against the owners and parties interested in the Steamship "s. S. Leelavati" for a decree for the sum of Rs. 33,041-15-3p being the amount alleged to be due to the plaintiff by the defendant for supplying necessaries in connection with the operations of the said vessel at the port of Calcutta. The defendant admitted the supply of necessaries but did not admit the amount claimed. The plaintiff conceded that Chinam Suryya Narayan Murti, the owner of "s. S. Leelavati", was permanently domiciled in India and was a citizen of the Union of India. The plaintiff moved an application for a Writ of Arrest and seizure of the ship by the Marshal of the Court. The application was allowed, and the ship was duly arrested and seized. The defendant contended that the Court had no jurisdiction to direct the arrest of the Ship on the facts stated.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The Court interpreted the words "domiciled in England or Wales" in Section 5 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, to mean domiciled in the Indian Union. However, the Court held that this interpretation would not lead to a conflict of jurisdiction between the different Admiralty Courts in India because each Court would exercise jurisdiction on the basis of one Indian domicile. The Court also held that the rationale of Admiralty jurisdiction over claims for necessaries was to provide a remedy where the ordinary civil courts of the territory were not open for granting relief. In the present case, the supplier could sue in the ordinary civil courts of India, and therefore, the Court could not exercise its Admiralty jurisdiction to entertain the claim.
Issues: 1. Whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit for necessaries supplied to a ship where the owner of the ship was domiciled in India? 2. Whether the interpretation of the words "domiciled in England or Wales" in Section 5 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, to mean domiciled in the Indian Union would lead to a conflict of jurisdiction between the different Admiralty Courts in India?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit because the supplier could sue in the ordinary civil courts of India, where the same system of law prevailed. The Court reasoned that the rationale of Admiralty jurisdiction over claims for necessaries was to provide a remedy where the ordinary civil courts of the territory were not open for granting relief. 2. The Court held that the interpretation of the words "domiciled in England or Wales" in Section 5 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, to mean domiciled in the Indian Union would not lead to a conflict of jurisdiction between the different Admiralty Courts in India because each Court would exercise jurisdiction on the basis of one Indian domicile.
Final Decision: The suit was dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) THIS is an admiralty action in this High Court. It raises an intricate but interesting point of Admiralty Jurisdiction. To put. it graphically, the point of construction raised in the suit is how the words "domiciled in England or Wales" appearing in Section 5 Of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861 (24 Victoria, Ch. X) can be dovetailed in the topography of India, and when so does, what will be the scope and extent of the meaning of these words. The ancient lumber of admiralty law in India is in need of immediate legislative spring cleaning, so that her citizen of today may be spared in future from the task of solving such problem of Indianising English geography by having to interpret English Statutes.
( 2 ) BEFORE discussing this point which does not appear to be covered by any decision in India, it is essential to state the accessory facts.
( 3 ) THE suit is instituted by Jayaswal Shipping Company, a registered partnership, against the owners and parties interested in the Steamship "s. S. Leelavati" for, a decree for the sum of Rs. 33,041-15-3p being the amount alleged to be due to the plaintiff by the defendant for supplying necessaries in connection with the operations of the said vessel at the port of Calcutta. It is conceded and admitted by Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the defendants, that necessaries were supplied. He, however, does not admit the amount claimed although he admits that the claim is on account of necessaries. Such admission, therefore, is recorded in the proceedings of the suit, because in paragraph 6 of the ailidavit-in-opposition of Chinam Suryya Narayan Murti affirmed on 6-10-1953 there is the allegation that"it does not appear from the said petition that any necessaries were supplied or moneys paid for necessaries in connection with the operation of the said vessel. "this admission, therefore, makes it unnecessary to take any evidence on the point whether necessaries were supplied. On the side of the plaintiff also there has been a concession on a point of fact by Mr. D. R. Das, learned counsel for the plaintiff. The admission by the plaintiff is that Chinam Suryya Narayan Murti, the owner of "s. S. Leela-vati", is permanently domiciled in India and is a citizen of the Union of India. That admission is also recorded in the proceedings of this suit. What is admitted in paragraph 3 of the plaintiff's petition is that Chinam Suryya Narayan Murti, the owner of "s. S. Leelavati", carried on and still carries on business under the name and style of "andhra Steamship Company" at No. 397 T. H. Road, Madras and that such Steamship is regis-tered in the Port of Madras. In the affidavit used by Chinam Suryya Narayan Murti it is said in support of his allegation of permanent domicile in and citizenship of India that he is a voter and he has exercised his right of franchise at the last Election for Parliament as well as for the Madras Legislative Assembly. The admission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff on the point of Murti's Indian domicile, therefore, makes it unnecessary to take any evidence on this point. I may also state here that neither in the plaint nor in the petition for arrest of the ship was any allegation made by the plaintiff that the defendant was not of Indian domicile. These are all the facts that need be stated for deciding the issue raised in this controversy.
( 4 ) A brief reference, however, to the interlocutory proceedings in this suit will not be out of place before taking up the discussion of the point of Admiralty Law and this High Court's jurisdiction thereunder. The plaintiff moved an application on petition in the Admiralty Jurisdiction of this Court before the learned Vacation Judge. The application was for a Writ of Arrest and seizure by the Marshal of this Court to seize and detain and arrest the said vessel "s. S Leelavati" lying in the Port of Calcutta on the river Hopghly. An Order was also asked for in that application for furnishing secur
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
