HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBBIAH, J.
M/s. Akash Dredging & Marine Services (P) Ltd.
Versus
Owners and parties interested in the Dredger CSD MARG CAUVERY, now lying at the Karaikan Port, India and represented by its Master
Application No. 7903 of 2014 in C.S. No. 805 of 2014
Decided on : 12-01-2015
Companies Act, 1956 - Merchant Shipping Act 1958 - Section 7 - Grant an order of arrest - Business of excavation Dredging and other allied works – Claim of compensation - Plaintiff is a private company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 having its Administrative Office at Block B - Defendant is Owners and Parties interested in Dredger CSD MARG CAUVERY which is a Dredging Vessel presently lying at Port - Plaintiff is carrying on business of excavation Dredging and other allied works in all Ports - Owners of defendant Dredger are International Dredging Ltd a company registered under laws of Singapore - Dredging Vessel CSD MARG CAUVERY has been chartered to Limited under demise charter Bareboat charter and flying flag of Republic - Though Limited is owner of Dredging Vessel they have authorized employees of Port to sign all letters and communications through employees of Port in view of fact that entire Operation Manning Repair and Maintenance of Dredging Vessel CSD MARG CAUVERY was communicated looked after by both Port and Limited as Directors in both companies are one and same and Port being subsidiary of Limited - For all practical purposes Mark Limited was in Control Management of defendant Dredging Vessel CSD MARG CAUVERY – Held, It is clear that mere fact that two companies have common share holders or common Board of Directors will not convert two companies as a single entity and hence order of arrest cannot be passed in a case where a person owns different ships in names of different companies unless it is a sham and onus is on part of plaintiff to establish that company structure is a sham and a mask to play fraud on public - But in instant case plaintiff has not established that company structure is a sham and mask to play fraud on public - In this regard counsel appearing for plaintiff submitted that said judgment of Bombay High Court has been stayed by Division Bench of Bombay High Court - In court considered opinion as contended by counsel appearing for defendant purpose of granting stay is only to stop operation of said order and it will not completely wipe off order from existence - In this regard counsel appearing for defendant relied upon decision of Humble Supreme Court in case Mopeds Ltd. Vs. Church of South India Trust Association reported - While considering effect of an Interim Order staying operation of order under challenge a distinction has to be made between quashing of an order and stay of operation of an order - Quashing of an order results in restoration of position as it stood on date of passing of order which has been quashed - Stay of operation of an order does not however lead to such a result - It only means that order which has been stayed would not be operative from date of passing of stay order and it does not mean that said order has been wiped out from existence - Even assuming that order has been stayed it would prevail until it is set aside or reversed - For all reasons stated above court of opinion plaintiff has not made out any case to make interim order of arrest of vessel as absolute – Application is dismissed
The present application has been filed by the applicant/plaintiff to grant an order of arrest of the defendant Dredger CSD MARG CAUVERY, lying at the Karaikal Port, India or wherever available together with her engines, gears, tackles, apparel, plant, machinery, furniture and fittings and paraphernalia pending disposal of the suit.
2. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff for the following reliefs:-
(i) For recovery of a sum of Rs.6,47,67,717/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realization in full;
(ii) For arrest and sale of the defendant Dredger CSD MARG CAUVERY in as is where is condition, now lying at the Karaikal Port, India, or wherever available together with her engines, gears, tackles, apparel, plant, machinery, furniture and fittings and paraphernalia;
(iii) For a direction to adjust the sale proceeds of the defendant Dredger CSD MARG CAUVERY against the suit claim of the plaintiff; and
(iv) For costs of the suit.
3. The averments made in the plaint, in brief, are as follows:-
(a) The plaintiff is a private company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Administrative Office at Block B, Kakatiya Nagar, Habsiguda, Hyderabad. The defendant is the Owners and Parties interested in the Dredger CSD MARG CAUVERY, which is a Dredging Vessel presently lying at the Karaikal Port, India.
(b) The plaintiff is carrying on business of excavation, Dredging and other allied works in all Ports in India. The owners of the defendant Dredger are M/s. Marg International Dredging Pte. Ltd., a company registered under the laws of Singapore. The Dredging Vessel CSD MARG CAUVERY has been chartered to M/s. Marg Limited, Chennai under demise charter/Bareboat charter and flying the flag of Republic of Comotose. Though M/s. Marg Limited is the owner of the Dredging Vessel, they have authorized the employees of Karaikal Port to sign all letters and communications through the employees of Karaikal Port, in view of the fact that the entire Operation, Manning, Repair and Maintenance of the Dredging Vessel CSD MARG CAUVERY was communicated, looked after by both Karaikal Port and M/s. Marg Limited as the Directors in both the companies are one and the same and the Karaikal Port being the subsidiary of M/s. Marg Limited. For all practical purposes M/s. Mark Limited was in Control, Management of the defendant Dredging Vessel CSD MARG CAUVERY.
(c) The owners of the defendant dredger entered into an agreement for the period from 1.4.2010 to 31.3.2011 with the plaintiff by which it required services of the plaintiff for Operation, Manning, Repair and Maintenance of CSD MARG CAUVERY for the purpose of deep excavation, dredging related works, in Port / Harbour at Karaikal Port. The plaintiff is entitled to payment as per clause 2 of the said agreement. The scope of the owners of the defendant dredger are referred to clause 4 of the said agreement. As per clause 15 of the agreement, the parties are at liberty to terminate the agreement dated 1.4.2010 and upon termination, the plaintiff is entitled for payment on pro-rata basis for the completed work and the plaintiff shall hand over the Dredging Vessel CSD MARG CAUVERY together with all other items as mentioned in clause 15.
(d) After signing the agreement dated 1.4.2010, the plaintiff had periodically rendered the services of Operation, Manning, Repair and Maintenance of the Dredging Vessel CSD MARG CAUVERY. The plaintiff has been raising invoices for the work done as per clause 2 of the payment terms. The Owners of the defendant dredger have also been making payment as and when the invoices were raised and prior to payment, the work done was verified by the representatives of the defendant and survey carried by them. Subsequently, by an addendum dated 1.4.2011 to the contract dated 1.4.2010, the contract was further extended in respect of the defendant Dredging Vessel CSD MARG CAUVERY for a further period from 1.4.2011 to 31.3.2012. Likew
Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. M.V. Kapitan Kud
State of Orissa and Ors. Vs. M.D.Illiyas (2006) 1 SCC 275
Liverpool and London S.P & I Association Ltd. Vs. Sea Success 2004 (9) SCC 512
Bacha F. Guzdar, Bombay Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.