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

2001 Supreme(Mad) 859

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM
S. Samiyullah , Plaintiff - Appellant
Versus
Ownersand Parties Interested In the Vessel M. V. Makar , Defendant, Advocates. - Respondents
C.S. No. 140 of 1997
Decided On : 06 August 2001

Appearing Advocates:S. Sampath Kumar, S. Ragunathan, Advocates.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the supply of necessaries to a vessel does not necessarily create a maritime lien and may not be recoverable from a subsequent owner of the vessel.

Headnote:

Admiralty Jurisdiction - Ship Chandler - Admiralty Act, 1861, Section 20(2)(m) - The court discussed the provisions of the Admiralty Act, 1861, particularly Section 20(2)(m) which allows claims in respect of cases or materials supplied to a ship for her operation or maintenance. The court also considered the nature and extent of maritime liens as per Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition Volume 43. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these legal provisions and their application to the facts of the case.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff, a ship chandler, filed a suit for payment of dues for supplies made to a vessel. The defendant, the owner of the vessel, contested the suit, denying liability for the supplies made prior to their ownership of the vessel.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the orders for and supply of the necessaries to the vessel. It held that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief sought and dismissed the suit.

Issues: The issues involved whether the plaintiff was entitled to a money decree and whether the court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient proof of the orders for and supply of the necessaries to the vessel. It also determined that the supply of necessaries did not fall within the admiralty lien, and thus the plaintiff could not recover from the present owner for the alleged supplies made to the earlier owner.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief sought.

Judgment :-

The Order of the Court was as follows :

This suit has been filed for payment of Rs. 3,65,103.50 with interest at 18% p.a. from the date thereof till the date of payment in full and for arrest and sale of the vessel m.v. Makar (Formerly m.v. Eagle II) in the Port of Vizag all its gears, tools, tackles, hinders, machinery, apparel, plant, furniture and paraphernalia towards the suit claim, interest and for costs.

2. Plaint averments are as follows :

The plaintiff was carrying on business as Ship Chandler. The headquarters of the business of the plaintiff is at Madras. On 25-1-96, the plaintiff received orders at Madras for supply of ship stores and provisions to the vessel m.v. Eagle II then, due to call at Port at Vizag. For the said order the plaintiff arranged for supply to the vessel at the Port of Vizag shop stores and provisions between 27-1-96 and 3-2-96 for a total value of US $ 8416.60. The plaintiff requested the defendant to remit the said amount in his account with the Standard Chartered Bank, Mylapore Branch, Madras 5. The defendant had promised to make payment but failed and neglected to do so. The interest for the said amount is payable at 18% per annum as per the terms of supply. The defendant is now due and payable to the plaintiff a sum of US $ 8416.60 towards principal and US $ 1725.15 towards interest aggregating to a sum of US $ 10141.75 equivalent to Rs. 3,65,103.50. The name of the ship m.v. Eagle II has now been changed to M.V. Makar by the defendant and the very same vessel is now due to call at the Port of Vizag on 23-3-97 as per Vizag's Port's Steamer Movements Bullettin issued on 18-3-97. The defendant had changed the name of the ship to hoodwink the creditors. The plaintiff wants the vessel to be arrested to recover his dues. Hence the present suit.

3. In the written statement filed by the defendant, it is contended that the vessel m.v. Makar (which was earlier known as m.v. Eagle II) is presently owned by M/s. Permana Shipping Company, Limassol, Cyprus. Under a Memorandum of Agreement dated 14-6-1996, the said M/s. Permana Shiping Company, Limassol, Cyprus, purchased the vessel from M/s. Belgica Company Limited, free from all encumbrances, maritime liens and any other debts whatsoever, and a bill of sale dated 19-6-96 was issued by M/s. Belgica Company Ltd. that the sale was free of all encumbrances, mortgages, maritime liens and any other debts whatsoever. After such purchase the vessel m.v. Eagle II was renamed as m.v. Makar. The defendant denies that the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest at 18% per annum and a sum of US $ 8416.60 towards principal and US $ 1725.15 towards interest are due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. The defendants are not liable to pay any amount since the supplies were made prior to the purchase of the vessel by the said M/s. Permana Shipping Company. The sellers of the vessel M/s. Belgica Company Limited had also clearly stated that they would settle all liabilities and other outstandings incurred prior to the delivery of the vessel, and the purchase of the vessel by M/s. Permana Shipping Company has been duly registered with the Councillor of Maritime Affairs. Republic of Cyprus on 27-6-96 and at the time of the purchase of the said vessel the name was changed, and they also denied the statement that the name of the ship has been changed only to defraud the creditors and to hoodwink them as alleged by the plaintiff. It is denied that the plaintiff will not be able to recover the dues unless the vessel was arrested. The plaintiff's action for arrest of the vessel is not in accordance with law and the plaintiff has no claim at all either against the present owners or the vessel. The defendant denies the provisions and stores as claimed by the plaintiff were supplied to the vessel m.v. Eagle II while he was at the port of Vishakapatnam between 27-1-1996 and 3-2-1996. The suit is not maintainable and the suit has to be dismissed.

4. On the above ple
























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