( 1 ) OJ Civil Application No. 140 of 2004 in Admirality Suit No. 5 of 1998 is filed by the applicants "original defendants to pass judgment and decree in terms of prayer (a) and (b) of the counterclaim contending inter alia that the defendants have filed their written statement and counterclaim on 11. 12. 2006 and inspite of 4 years having lapsed since the service of the counterclaim filed by the defendants, the plaintiffs have failed and neglected to file the written statement to the counterclaim and therefore, they have prayed for judgment and decree relying upon Order VIII Rule 5 r. w. Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure; 1908 as according to the defendants - the applicants herein, the averments made in the counterclaim stands controverted.

( 2 ) OJ Civil Application No. 150 of 2005 in Admirality Suit No. 5 of 1998 is at the instance of the defendants to permit them to amend the written statement and counterclaim and cure other defects as detailed in Annexure " B and re-verify in terms of verification clause reproduced in Annexure " C. It is also further prayed to permit the defendants to place on record the written statement and counterclaim as amended and re-verified in terms of relief " (a ). It is also further prayed to permit the defendants to place on record the copy of the Power of Attorney dated 4. 12. 1998.

( 3 ) OJ Civil Application No. 61 of 2005 in Admirality Suit No. 5 of 1998 is at the instance of the original plaintiffs with a prayer that the written statement and counterclaim filed by the defendants in Admirality Suit No. 5 of 1998 be struck off and to pronounce the judgment on the basis of the facts contained in plaint in the Admirality Suit No. 5 of 1998.

( 4 ) ADMIRALITY Suit No. 5 of 1998 is filed by the original plaintiffs for a judgment and decree in the sum of Rs. 19. 76 Million US $ equivalent to Rs. 83. 98 Crores being damages estimating as per the particulars at Exh. H against the defendants. A further decree is also prayed for a sum of Rs. 160 Crores being damages by way of loss of revenue and other like losses as per the particulars Exh. G. A further decree is also sought for a sum of Rs. 13300 Lacs being the damages by way of loss of revenue and other like losses as per the particulars at Exh. I. The said suit came to be filed on 24th November, 1998. It appears that the order of arrest was passed by this Court immediately on 25th November, 1998, however, on furnishing the security by way of bank guarantee the vessel was released. It appears that thereafter a written statement and counterclaim came to be filed by the defendants on 9th December, 2000 and by way of counterclaim, the defendants have prayed for a decree against the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 to pay the defendants a sum of Rs. 4. 8 Million US $ and the said written statement and counterclaim has been served upon the original plaintiffs on 11. 12. 2000. It appears that as there was no written statement filed to the counterclaim by the plaintiffs, a notice of motion by way of OJCA No. 140 of 2004 has been taken out by the original defendants to pass judgment and decree in terms of prayers " (a) and (b) of the counterclaim contending inter alia that despite of 4 years having elapsed since the service of the counterclaim filed by the defendants, the plaintiffs have failed and neglected to file the written statement to the defendants counterclaim by further submitting that owing to the plaintiffs not complying with their obligation to file the written statement to the counterclaim within the time prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure; 1908, the averments and statement made in the counterclaim stands un-controverted. Thus, according to the defendants they are entitled to judgment and decree under Order VIII Rule 5 r. w. Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Having served with the said notice of motion, the plaintiffs came out with the notice of motion by way of OJ CA No. 61 of 2005 with a prayer to struck off

Click Here to Read the rest of this document