SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(Cal) 669

High Court Of Calcutta
A. K. GANGULY
SABA INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING - Appellant
Versus
M.V.BRAVE EAGLE, M.V.LIMA-I - Respondent
Admiralty Suit 8  Of  2001
Decided On : 10/15/2001

Advocates Appeared:
S.N.MUKHERJEE, SUDIPTA SARKAR, SUHIT ROY CHOWDHURY, Tilak Basu

A claim arising out of the supply of necessaries may give rise to a statutory right of action in rem under section 5 of the Admiralty Court Act 1861 but it does not give rise to a maritime lien.

Headnote:

ADMIRALTY - MARITIME LIEN - NECESSARIES - MASTER'S DISBURSEMENTS - SISTER SHIP - SALE NEGOTIATIONS DURING ARREST - JURISDICTION - ADMIRALTY COURT ACT, 1861, S. 5 - MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1958, SS. 148(1), (2), 18.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff, a shipping and project investment company, filed an admiralty suit against the defendants, owners of the vessel M.V. LIMA II, claiming expenses incurred for supplying provisions, fresh water, garbage collection, overseas telephone calls, and medical treatment for the crew. The plaintiff asserted that these services and supplies constituted necessaries supplied to the vessel, and that they had also incurred other expenses on behalf of the vessel, including port dues and stevedoring charges. The plaintiff sought to arrest M.V. LIMA-I, a sister ship of M.V. LIMA II, as the original vessel had jumped an order of arrest and was no longer in the port.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that a claim arising out of the supply of necessaries may give rise to a statutory right of action in rem under section 5 of the Admiralty Court Act 1861 but it does not give rise to a maritime lien. The court further held that a supplier of necessaries cannot convert his claim into a maritime lien on a sister ship.

Issues: 1. Whether a claim arising out of the supply of necessaries can give rise to a maritime lien? 2. Whether a supplier of necessaries can convert his claim into a maritime lien on a sister ship? 3. Whether sale negotiations in respect of a ship under order of arrest are void?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. A claim arising out of the supply of necessaries may give rise to a statutory right of action in rem under section 5 of the Admiralty Court Act 1861 but it does not give rise to a maritime lien. 2. A supplier of necessaries cannot convert his claim into a maritime lien on a sister ship. 3. Sale negotiations in respect of a ship under order of arrest are not void.

Final Decision: The court vacated the interim order granted on 21st September 2001, which had restrained the defendants from transferring, alienating, encumbering, or otherwise dealing with the vessel M.V. LIMA I / M.V. LIMA II.

A. K. GANGULY, J.

( 1 ) THIS admiralty suit has been filed by one Saba International Shipping and Project Investment Pvt Ltd. in respect of its claim arising out of the supply of provisions made to M. V, LIMA II. The case in the plaint is that the plaintiff has incurred expenses for supply of fresh water, garbage collection, overseas telephone calls etc. and also for the medical treatment for the crew. It has been stated in para 7 of the plaint itself that the expenses incurred by the plaintiff and goods supplied and services rendered to the said vessel M. V. LIMA II were in the nature of necessaries supplied to the said vessel. It has also been stated that the plaintiff incurred other expenses on behalf of the said vessel towards payment of Port dues and for stevedoring expenses/ charges. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant No. 3 from time to time requested the plaintiff to supply further provisions to the ship and the plaintiff further asserts that defendant No. 3 admitted its liability. On account of such services rendered and supplies made, the plaintiff submitted its disbursement account No A/152/01 dated 2nd May 2001 to the defendant No. 3 for U. S. $ 85,747. 02. The defendant No. 3 could not make payment of the dues to the plaintiff but the defendant No. 3 has represented to the plaintiff that pursuant to an agreement dated 7th April 2001 entered between the defendant No. 1 and one Suvino International, Mumbai, India, the defendant No. 2 fixed cargo at the Port of Kandla in India to carry bagged salt to Philippines and the defendant No. 3 agreed to pay the dues of the plaintiff from the freight to be earned by the said vessel M. V. LIMA II from the said prospective voyage to the Port of Kandala. It is the case of the plaintiff that pursuant to such agreement, the plaintiff allowed the defendant No. 2 the owner of the said vesel M. V. LIMA II to leave the Port of Aden.

( 2 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the plaintiff came to know that on account of default of defendant No. 3 and non-payment of dues to other creditors, an order of arrest was passed against the vessel M. V. LIMA II while the said vessel was in the Port of Kandla. But M. V. LIMA II somehow jumped the order of arrest and the fact remains that defendant No. 3 did not pay the plaintiff the outstanding sum of U. S. $ 85,747. 02 or any Portion thereof.

( 3 ) THEREFORE, the plaintiff is seeking to arrest M. V. LIMA-I which is also owned by the defendant No. 3. The said vessel arrived in Calcutta in connection with her voyage. The said vessel was also subjected to an order of arrest for non-payment of dues of her creditors. In order to avoid payment to various creditors, the defendant No. 3 wrongly and illegally changed her name from M. V. LIMA I to M. V. BRAVE EAGLE.

( 4 ) IT has been asserted by the plaintiff that its claim arising out of the supply of necessaries to vesssel M. V. LIMA II is a maritime lien and the plaintiff is entitled to enforce its maritime lien on the said vessel M. V LIMA- I which is now known as M. V. BRAVE EAGLE, a sister ship of M. V. LIMA II.

( 5 ) AS it was apprehended that the said vessel M. V. LIMA I now known as M. V. BRAVE EAGLE may, for avoiding payment, sail out of Calcutta Port, this Admiralty suit was filed with the prayer to arrest the said ship.

( 6 ) ON such proceeding being initiated, this Court on 21st September 2001 passed an interim order of injunction restraining the defendants from transferring, alienating, encumbering or otherwise dealing with in any manner the vessel M. V. LIMA I / M. V. LIMA II until the disposal of the application.

( 7 ) AFTER such interim order was passed, an application was filed by one Sanjeev Kumar Jain on behalf of the Jain Udyog praying for vacation of the interim order of injunction dated 21st September 2001. In connection with the said prayer an affidavit was filed by one Sanjeev Kumar Jain claiming thereby that applicant Jain Udyog is the owner of the vessel M. V. LIMA I now known as YIN KI














































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top