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

2005 Supreme(Ker) 718

Judges : J.B.KOSHY
Al Ahli Bank of Kuwait (KSC) - Appellant
Versus
M/T.Arabian Victory - Respondent
Case No : W.A.No.2990 of 2002 (D) W.P.(C).No.10591 of 2005 and O.P.No.19116 of 2002
Decided On : 12/08/2005
Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellant: M. Pathrose Matthai (Sr.), Saji Varghese, Mariam Mathai, Advocates. For the Respondents: R16, John Varghese, ASG, R14 & 15 B.S. Krishnan (Sr.), K. Anand (A.201), Latha Krishnan, V.P. Seemanthini, Koshy George-Adv Commr., George Thomas Mevada-Adv. Commr., R18, K. Jaju Babu, R3, P.K. Suresh Kumar, R11, E.S. Ashraf, R4 to R13, C.A. Majeed, Advocates.

Headnote:

Constitution of India - Art. 226 - It filed the writ petition invoking admirality jurisdiction of this Court under Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 and Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the proceedings of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ernakulam in M.C. No.11 of 2002 and related petitions and to enforce its claim as a mortgagee and to sell the vessel to foreclose legal maritime claims - Held, Art.6 provides that all authorised claims will come only after satisfying the maritime liens. Therefore, wages payable by the employer, that is, second respondent owner of the ship, to the master and crew has got maritime lien and, therefore, their claim has got preference over the claim of mortgagee. No suit was filed by the appellant bank in India for enforcement of the mortgage after payment of court fee. Such a suit can be filed only in Court of U.A.E. as per Ext. P-1 mortgage deed. Further, they have filed suit in U.A.E. jurisdictional court as per the terms of the agreement and since that was dismissed, according to the bank, they have filed an appeal. It is also submitted that there was Ext. R-2 (2) agreement between the bank and second respondent regarding the same. Whether that agreement is binding or whether terms of the agreement are violated by any of the parties etc. have to be decided in that suit. In the above circumstances, balance amount after satisfying the claims allowed cannot be given to the appellant bank and, therefore, it has to be deposited here in the Treasury and the balance amount can be withdrawn depending upon the finding of the jurisdictional court - Petition dismissed.

Judgment :-

These cases were heard by a Division Bench of this Court in detail. Both the learned Judges who heard the matter delivered separate judgments and in view of the difference of opinion expressed by the Bench, the matter is placed before me for opinion by the Chief Justice under section 23 of the Travancore-Cochin High Court Act read with section 9 of the Kerala High Court Act. Both the learned Judges in their separate judgments dismissed Writ petition No.10591 of 2002 in limine and O.P.No.19116 of 2002 without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and to seek relief before the appropriate court. I am not considering that part of the judgment. Therefore, what is left is only the writ Appeal No.2990 of 2002. Before stating the difference of opinion expressed by the two learned Judges, the facts of the case which are not in dispute are summarized in a nutshell.

2. Al Ahli Bank of Kuwait (KSC), petitioner in W.P.(C) No.27758 of 2002, is the appellant herein. It filed the writ petition invoking admirality jurisdiction of this Court under Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 and article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the proceedings of the Judicial Magistrate of the first class. Ernakulam in M.C.No.11 of 2002 and related petitions and to enforce its claim as a mortgagee and to sell the vessel to foreclose legal maritime claims. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate to entertain the maritime claims of respondents 3 to 13, master and Crew of the vessel, was also questioned. The vessel M.T. Arabian victory was owned by the second respondent company. Last cargo carried in that vessel was discharged on 6-5-2002 at Port Jebel Ali and it was advised to drop anchor at Out of Port Limit (OPL) Dubai (Highseas, International Waters). According to the Master of the Ship during the stay at OPL Dubai, there was no supply of stores, spares, provisions, fresh water, bunkers etc. The air-conditioning unit of the vessel was not operational.

The crew members were also not paid their wages for the last several months. The crew remained in the anchorage for about 50 days and during those 50 days, the crew was left to look after themselves without supply of any essential and basic requirements from the owner or agents. In spite of repeated reminders by fax, the owners never did anything. They remained in the vessel at OPL (Highseas) at 46 degree centigrade as the A/C unit was not functioning without proper food. They also requested the Mission to Seafarers. A non-Governmental organization at Dubai and Managing Director of Dubai Ports and Marine Police, Dubai for help on humanitarian grounds. They were not allowed to land at Dubai. According to the Master of the ship, the second respondent company threatened the Master and crew. Even though Mission to Seafarers provided some vessel bunkers and basic essential supplies, the entries in the log book show that the crew members started falling sick due to dehydration, sunburns etc. In order to save the lives of the crew as they were in distress the ship set sail to the Port of Mumbai. Since the Port authorities at Mumbai did not permit entry for the ship, it was taken to Cochin Port. Master by Ext. R1 (1) message dated 1-7-2002 requested the Chairman of the Cochin Port Trust seeking permission to enter the Port and also requesting to provide medical assistance, fresh water and food to him and to the crew members. By the time, owners of the ship informed the authorities of Mumbai Port that the ship was hi jacked by the Master and crew. The said message was conveyed to the cochin Port Trust. Pursuant to the said intimation, the Coast Guard inspected the vessel and submitted Ext.R1. (j) report before the Chairman of the Cochin Port Trust. The report said that nothing suspicious was found in the vessel. It is further stated that the general health of the crew was not good and they require medical attention. The habitability condition of the vessel was pathetic. The vessel was running out of provisions,







































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