Back
2003 Supreme(Guj) 15
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :K.A.Puj
M.V.SEA RENOWN - Appellant
Versus
ENERGY NET LIMITED - Respondent
C.A. 257 of 2001
Decided On : 01/16/2003
Headnote:
Admiralty Courts Act, 1861 - Section 5 - Applicant has filed this application before this Court seeking relief to effect that Bank Guarantee furnished by them in favor of Registrar of this Court in order to obtain release of applicants vessel be returned duly discharged and that for an order directing opponents to pay to applicant a sum of Dollars - Considering this application and granting or not granting the reliefs claimed some bare facts are required to be looked into as they are to be appreciated in light of legal position on subject - These bare facts are briefly stated is a foreign-flag vessel to which bunkers were supplied by plaintiff applicant is stated to be owner of applicant vessel - Plaintiff has filed Admiralty Suit in this Court against defendant vessel sea-renown seeking her arrest warrant of arrest and that net sale proceeds thereof be applied towards satisfaction of plaintiffs claim in suit and also for a decree against defendant vessel in sum of Dollars together with interest at rate from date of filing of suit till payment and/or realization - By way of an interim injunction plaintiff has also claimed that defendant-vessel be arrested and/or detained and/or be restrained by an order of injunction from sailing out of port - Along and/or moving in any manner from her present position and anchorage and maintain status-quo in respect of vessel plaintiff has stated in plaint that on or about plaintiff was contacted by brokers acting on behalf of owners of defendant-vessel for supply of bunkers to said vessel at Port Said Suez - It was further stated that an order confirmation - Order confirmation further stated that receipt of the confirmation signifies acceptance of responsibility for payment of bunker invoice by each and all of buyers listed in order confirmation – Held, This Court that in event of defendant depositing in this Court a sum Dollars towards satisfaction of plaintiffs claim in suit and cost of on payment of poundage if any or furnishing security legal authorities cited by advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties are concerned - This Court is of view that two Bombay decisions cited by ld advocate appearing for defendant are not applicable to present case and they are distinguishable - As a matter of fact in case of Raj Shipping Agencies Bombay High Court has come to conclusion that documents which have been placed on record by plaintiffs purchase order invoices etc - In case of Bombay High Court has simply relied on its earlier decision in case of Raj Shipping Agencies - However in both decisions earlier judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Crescent Petroleum Ltd was neither cited nor referred to Court has come to conclusion that the averments in plaint and documents on record showed that agreement was entered into expressly on faith and credit of vessel - This Court has further held that plaintiffs are perfectly within their right to claim that necessaries/bunkers were supplied at instance/authority of vessel/owners – Petition Dismissed (Para 23)
( 1 ) THE Applicant has filed this application before this Court on 5th December 2001 seeking relief to the effect that the Bank Guarantee dated 16th August 2001 furnished by them in favour of the Registrar of this Court in order to obtain release of the applicants vessel be returned duly discharged and that for an order directing the opponents to pay to the applicant a sum of 143230. 28 US Dollars.
( 2 ) FOR the purpose of considering this application and granting or not granting the reliefs claimed therein, some bare facts are required to be looked into as well as they are to be appreciated in the light of legal position on the subject. These bare facts are briefly stated as under: 2. 1. The opponent, who is the original plaintiff (hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff for the sake of convenience), is a company organised under the laws of Liberia and carries on business, inter alia, as suppliers of bunkers to various vessels worldwide. The applicant No. 1, who is the original-defendant (hereinafter be referred to as the defendant for the sake of convenience) is a foreign-flag vessel to which bunkers were supplied by the plaintiff. The applicant No. 2 is stated to be the owner of the applicant No. 1 vessel. 2. 2. The plaintiff has filed the Admiralty Suit No. 19 of 2001 in this Court against the defendant vessel "sea-RENOWN" seeking her arrest under the warrant of arrest and that the net sale proceeds thereof be applied towards the satisfaction of the plaintiffs claim in the suit and also for a decree against the defendant vessel in the sum of 128032. 40 US Dollars together with interest at the rate of 24% p. a. from the date of filing of the suit till payment and/or realisation. By way of an interim injunction,the plaintiff has also claimed that the defendant-vessel be arrested and/or detained and/or be restrained by an order of injunction from sailing out of the port of Alang and/or moving in any manner from her present position at Alang and anchorage and maintain status-quo in respect of the vessel. 2. 3. The plaintiff has stated in the plaint that on or about 24th July 2000 the plaintiff was contacted by brokers acting on behalf of the owners of the defendant-vessel for supply of bunkers to the said vessel at Port Said, Suez. It was further stated that an order confirmation dated 24th July 2000 was issued by the plaintiff to the owners of the said vessel confirming for the order of supply of 530 MT IFO 180 CST and M 80 MT MGO at a price of 148. 50 US Dollars per MT for IFO and 325. 00 US Dollars per MT for MGO. In the order confirmation the buyers were stated to be the vessel SEA-RENOWN and jointly and severally the owners/managing owners/operators/managers/disponent owners/charterers and vessel in rem. The order confirmation further stated that the receipt of the confirmation signifies the acceptance of responsibility for payment of the bunker invoice by each and all of the buyers listed in the order confirmation. The terms of the supply of bunkers require, inter alia, for payment to be made within 30 days from the date of delivery and interest on late payment to be charged at 2% per month. 2. 4. It was further stated that in accordance with the order confirmation, bunkers were supplied to the said vessel at Port Said by the plaintiff through local physical suppliers MISR Petroleum Company on 30th July 2000. The supplies were acknowledged by the Master and the Chief Engineer of the said vessel who endorsed the bunker delivery receipts with their seal and signature. The receipt for bunkers, duly acknowledged and endorsed by the Master and the Chief Engineer of the defendant-vessel states that the bunkers delivered/received on Board are for account of the owners and/or managing owners and/or managers of the said vessel as well as of any other vessels managed by the same managers as appearing in Lloyds Register of Shipping or Greater Shipping Directory or any other Shipping Directors and/or for account Ch
