1996 Supreme(Del) 694

High Court Of Delhi
STATE TRADE CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF BANGLADESH - Respondent
Decided On : 08/30/1996

A High Court seized of a suit within its competence by reference to pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction, though not a High Court within the meaning of Section 3 (15) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, may independent of the provisions contained in Section 443 of the Act exercise jurisdiction to direct arrest and detention of a ship if found in Indian territorial waters and if it may form an opinion that it was necessary to do so in the interest of justice.

Headnote:

MV PRANBURI - MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1958 - SECTIONS 3(15), 443, 444 - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - SECTIONS 20, 38, 39, 94, 151 - JURISDICTION - ARREST AND DETENTION OF FOREIGN SHIP - INHERENT JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT - INTERIM RELIEF - JURISDICTIONAL COMPETENCE - TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION - CAUSE OF ACTION - PRIMA FACIE CASE - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - IRREPARABLE INJURY - SUIT FOR DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT - ARREST AND DETENTION OF SHIP - WHETHER NECESSARY - WHETHER COURT CAN DIRECT ARREST AND DETENTION OF SHIP ANCHORED AT COASTAL BORDER OF COUNTRY - WHETHER HIGH COURT CAN EXERCISE JURISDICTION TO DIRECT ARREST AND DETENTION OF SHIP UNDER SECTION 443 OF MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1958 - WHETHER COURT CAN PASS INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS AND GRANT INTERIM RELIEFS PENDING DECISION ON JURISDICTIONAL COMPETENCE - HELD, YES - APPEAL ALLOWED.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff entered into a contract with defendant No. 1 for sale and purchase of non-Basmati Par boiled rice. Plaintiff supplied 40,000 MT of rice to defendant No. 1. For the balance 10,500 MT, plaintiff entered into a back-to-back contract with defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 2 lifted 6500 MT of rice on a ship known as M V YANMIT from Kakinada Port. The ship belonged to defendant No. 3. Defendant No. 1 claimed damages from plaintiff for undelivered quantity of 6500 MT rice which was loaded on MV Yanmit. Plaintiff filed a suit in the High Court of Delhi (Original Side) seeking an ex parte ad interim order. The learned single Judge directed the ship to be arrested. By order dated 24-5-1996 the learned single Judge vacated the interim order dated 9-4-1996. Plaintiff preferred this appeal.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that: (i) Section 443 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 does not exclude jurisdiction and availability of remedies under common law, de hors the provision of the Act. It is an enabling provision. A High Court though not having jurisdiction over the suit by reference to Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, in the sense that the cause of action or part thereof has not arisen within its territorial jurisdiction may still exercise power to order attachment by detention of a ship under section 443 if it be a high Court within the meaning of S. 3 (15) of the Act; (ii) A High Court seized of a suit within its competence by reference to pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction, though not a High Court within the meaning of Section 3 (15) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, may independent of the provisions contained in Section 443 of the Act exercise jurisdiction to direct arrest and detention of a ship if found in Indian territorial waters and if it may form an opinion that it was necessary to do so in the interest of justice. (iii) The jurisdiction to pass interlocutory orders and grant interim reliefs arises by the initial assumption of jurisdiction by the Court and is not dependent on the Court having positively formed an opinion that it has jurisdiction to fry the suit. (iv) Every Court has inherent power to decide the question of its own jurisdiction. Characteristic attribute of a judicial act and decision is that it binds whether it be right or wrong unless set aside by a competent forum in appropriate proceedings. (v) The Court having assumed initially the jurisdiction over the suit, pending decision on its jurisdictional competence it has power to make interlocutory orders and grant interim relief by way of injunction or otherwise lest the suit itself should be frustrated by the time the court arrives at a positive finding on the question of its jurisdiction. (vi) A High Court is a Court of plenary jurisdiction having inherent power to pass such orders as would meet the ends of justice. It can draw upon analogy of what is specifically provided elsewhere and can devise suitable form of process to achieve the ends of justice consistently with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience, the only rider being while doing so it should not offend any provision of law. In appropriate cases its precept/ writ can run even beyond the territory of its jurisdiction.

Issues: Whether the High Court can exercise jurisdiction to direct arrest and detention of ship under Section 443 of Merchant Shipping Act, 1958? Whether the court can pass interlocutory orders and grant interim reliefs pending decision on jurisdictional competence?

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that: (i) Section 443 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 does not exclude jurisdiction and availability of remedies under common law, de hors the provision of the Act. It is an enabling provision. A High Court though not having jurisdiction over the suit by reference to Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, in the sense that the cause of action or part thereof has not arisen within its territorial jurisdiction may still exercise power to order attachment by detention of a ship under section 443 if it be a high Court within the meaning of S. 3 (15) of the Act; (ii) A High Court seized of a suit within its competence by reference to pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction, though not a High Court within the meaning of Section 3 (15) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, may independent of the provisions contained in Section 443 of the Act exercise jurisdiction to direct arrest and detention of a ship if found in Indian territorial waters and if it may form an opinion that it was necessary to do so in the interest of justice. (iii) The jurisdiction to pass interlocutory orders and grant interim reliefs arises by the initial assumption of jurisdiction by the Court and is not dependent on the Court having positively formed an opinion that it has jurisdiction to fry the suit. (iv) Every Court has inherent power to decide the question of its own jurisdiction. Characteristic attribute of a judicial act and decision is that it binds whether it be right or wrong unless set aside by a competent forum in appropriate proceedings. (v) The Court having assumed initially the jurisdiction over the suit, pending decision on its jurisdictional competence it has power to make interlocutory orders and grant interim relief by way of injunction or otherwise lest the suit itself should be frustrated by the time the court arrives at a positive finding on the question of its jurisdiction. (vi) A High Court is a Court of plenary jurisdiction having inherent power to pass such orders as would meet the ends of justice. It can draw upon analogy of what is specifically provided elsewhere and can devise suitable form of process to achieve the ends of justice consistently with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience, the only rider being while doing so it should not offend any provision of law. In appropriate cases its precept/ writ can run even beyond the territory of its jurisdiction.

Final Decision: Appeal allowed.