IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ramendra Mohan Datta, Chandan Kumar Banerji, JJ.
Mohammed Saleh Behbehani & Company – Appellant
Versus
Bhoja Trader - Respondent
Appeal No. of 1981
Decided On : May 18, 1981
ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION - SCOPE AND EXTENT - ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT - COLONIAL COURTS OF ADMIRALTY ACT, 1890 - CHARTER OF 1774 - INTERPRETATION - MARITIME LIEN - CHARTER-PARTY AGREEMENT - BREACH OF CHARTER-PARTY - CLAIM FOR DAMAGES - ARREST OF VESSEL.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff-appellant, a charterer, entered into a charter-party agreement with the owners of the vessel M.V. "NOTIS." The vessel sailed from Korea to Calcutta and was scheduled to sail from Calcutta to Kuwait. The plaintiff-appellant alleged breaches of the charter-party by the vessel and sought to terminate the agreement. On April 25, 1981, the plaintiff-appellant applied for the arrest of the vessel, which was granted by the trial court. The defendant-respondent, Intra Co. Ltd., the new owner of the vessel, applied for the release of the vessel, arguing that the plaintiff-appellant's claim for damages for breach of charter-party did not fall within the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Calcutta High Court held that the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court was limited to the same extent as the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the High Court in England as it existed in 1890, when the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act was enacted. The court interpreted Clause 26 of the Charter of 1774, which conferred Admiralty Jurisdiction on the Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, to mean that the jurisdiction was limited to matters over which the Admiralty Court of England could exercise jurisdiction. Since claims for damages for breach of charter-party were not recognized as maritime liens in English law prior to 1890, the court held that such claims could not be entertained by the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court is limited to the same extent as the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the High Court in England as it existed in 1890? 2. Whether a claim for damages for breach of charter-party gives rise to a maritime lien that can be enforced in admiralty against the res?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Clause 26 of the Charter of 1774, which conferred Admiralty Jurisdiction on the Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, to mean that the jurisdiction was limited to matters over which the Admiralty Court of England could exercise jurisdiction. 2. The court held that claims for damages for breach of charter-party were not recognized as maritime liens in English law prior to 1890 and, therefore, such claims could not be entertained by the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff-appellant's application for a stay of the order releasing the vessel.
Datta, J.: In this interlocutory application the appellant is asking for stay of the operation of the order of D. K. Sen, J. passed on May 4, 1981. After delivering his judgment the learned Judge ordered that the vessel would be released on furnishing security to the extent of United State Dollars 4450 in equivalent India rupee at the current exchange rate. It was directed that the security might be given in cask or by a Bank Guarantee within a week from the said date. The Registrar was to issue the instrument of release and the Marshal was to release the vessel on a signed copy of the minutes. The plaintiff was directed to pay the cost, expenses and remuneration of the Marshal.
2. Prior to that on April 25, 1981 on the application of the plaintiff appellant the learned Judge made an order for arrest of the vessel as follows ;-
"There will be an order in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of the affidavit. The Registrar, Origenal Side, is directed to issue the Writ of Arrest expeditiously. It is made clear that the defendants will be entitled to apply for release of the vessel on furnishing security. The plaintiff is directed to deposit with the Marshal Rs. 1,000/- at the first instance on account of Marshal's costs and charges.
It is made clear that the vessel is to be arrested on the signed copy of the minutes.
The Registrar, the Marshal and all parties to action a signed copy of the minutes subject to the usual undertaking."
Pursuant to the said order the said vessel M. V. "NOTIS" also known as “Bhoja Trader" lying at K.P. Docks was arrested by the Marshal. The said arrest is still continuing. On April 27, 1981 on behalf of Intra Co. Ltd. a foreign company of British, West Indies, the matter was mentioned before the learned Judge praying for release of vessel. The matter was directed to appear marked as to be mentioned on April, 28 1981. On the said date an affidavit was filed on behalf of Intra Co. Ltd. in opposition to the said original application for arrest. It stated therein that the said vessel has since been acquired by purchaser Intra Co. Ltd. On April 16, 1981 from the previous owners of M.V. "NOTIS" and the name thereof was changed to M. V. "BHOJA TRADER". It was also stated that the said vessel was delivered to Intra Co. Ltd. On April 16, 1981 at Calcutta by singing a "Protocol of delivery". The said vessel was said to be registered in the Republic of Panama on April 21, 1981 in the said name of “BHOJA TRADER". In the application before us a provisional certificate of registration has been relied on.
3. According to the plaintiff appellant on January 19, 1981 a charter-party agreement was entered into by and between them and the owners of the vessel M. V. "NOTIS" whereunder the vessel sailed from Korea to the Port of Calcutta and thereafter it was due to sail from the Port of Calcutta to Kuwait. According to the plaintiff appellant there were breaches of charter-party committed by the said vessel and in respect thereto the owners were asked to remedy the said breaches. As such breaches were not remedied the plaintiff appellant on April 13, 1981 at Calcutta issued notice to the respondent terminating the said charter-party. On April 24, 1981 having come to know that the vessel sought to change hands the plaintiff appellant rushed to Court by moving the said application on April 25, 1981 at the residence of the learned Judge by a Special Appointment. On April 30, 1981 an affidavit was filed on behalf of the plaintiff appellant in the said proceeding before the learned Judge of the Court below and thereafter the matter was heard and on May 4, 1981 the judgment and order was passed by the Court below. On the very same day i.e. on May 4, 1981 the appeal was preferred and the application was moved for an ad interim order. The Appeal Court made an order on May 4, 1981 granting an ad interim order for stay of the operation of the order of the Court below and directing the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with its a
Kamalkar. Mahadev Bhagal v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.