IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
R. Subbiah, J.
Owners and Persons Interested in the Vessel, MT Titan Vision - Appellants
Vs.
KTV Health Food Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
Application Nos. 6124, 6259, 6260 and 6261 of 2014 in C.S. No. 631 of 2014
Decided On : 23-12-2014
Companies Act, 1956 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 45 - Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Order 14, Rule 8 – Rules 3 and 42 - Defendant seeking to vacate Order of Arrest - Charter Party and Bills of Lading - Application has been filed by Defendant under Order 14, Rule 8 of O.S. Rules and Section 45 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying to refer dispute raised in Suit to Arbitration in terms of Arbitration clause as contained in the Charter Party and Bills of Lading - Suit has been filed by Plaintiff to direct Defendant to pay a sum of together with interest at rate of per annum from Plaint till date of realisations for arrest and sale of Defendant vessel MT titan vision together with Engines Tackles Cranes Derricks Machinery and other Paraphernalia and Articles on Board of said vessel presently lying in Indian waters at Port of or wherever found within territorial waters of India for a direction to adjust sale proceeds of Defendant Vessel MT titan vision against Suit claim Plaintiff is a Private Limited Company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 having head office and its registered office - Held, If any other person who is having interest and claim as against vessel can always intervene in matter - Therefore it is an action in rem - Action in rem will be converted into an action in personam if owner of vessel subjects to jurisdiction and obtains release of vessel by depositing security - Therefore in event of Owner of vessel obtains release of vessel by depositing security action in rem will be converted into action in person - Only in that situation question of referring dispute to Arbitration would arise - Since this Court has already come to conclusion that there is a Maritime claim as against Defendant by Plaintiff Interim Order of Arrest of vessel cannot be interfered with question of referring matter to Arbitration does not arise at this stage – Application dismissed
R. Subbiah, J.
1. Application No. 6124 of 2014 has been filed by the Plaintiff under Order 14, Rule 8 of O.S. Rules read with Rule 42, Rule 3 of O.S. Rules praying for arrest of the Respondent vessel MT TITAN VISION together with her Engines, Gears, Tackles, Apparels, Plant, Machinery, Furniture & Fixtures and Paraphernalia, presently in Indian Waters at the Port of Karaikal, or wherever found within the territorial waters of India. Application No. 6259 of 2014 has been filed by the Defendant seeking to vacate the Order of Arrest dated 25.9.2014 passed in Application No. 6124 of 2014 in respect of the vessel MT TITAN VISION.
2. Application No. 6260 of 2014 has been filed by the Defendant under Order 14, Rule 8 of the O.S. Rules read with Order 7, Rule 11(d) of C.P.C., praying to reject the Plaint.
3. Application No. 6261 of 2014 has been filed by the Defendant under Order 14, Rule 8 of the O.S. Rules and Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to refer the dispute raised in the Suit to Arbitration in terms of the Arbitration clause as contained in the Charter Party and Bills of Lading.
4. The Suit has been filed by the Plaintiff for the following reliefs:
"(i) to direct the Defendant to pay a sum of Rs 5,14,19,114.50 (in USD 845,570) together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the Plaint till the date of realisations;
(ii) for the arrest and sale of the Defendant vessel MT TITAN VISION together with Engines, Tackles, Cranes, Derricks, Machinery and other Paraphernalia and Articles on Board of the said vessel presently lying in the Indian waters at the Port of Karaikal, or wherever found within the territorial waters of India;
(iii) for a direction to adjust the sale proceeds of the Defendant vessel MT TITAN VISION against the Suit claim; and
(iv) for payment of costs of the Suit."
5. The averments made in the Plaint, in brief, are as follows:
"5(1). The Plaintiff is a Private Limited Company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having head office at Puducherry and its registered office at Chennai. The Defendant is the owner and person interested in the vessel MT TITAN VISION registered with Singapore flag, with a gross tonnage of (GRT) 6190 MTs and a dead weight of (DWT) 9016 T. The said vessel is owned by Singapore Tankers Private Ltd., care of Oceanic Shipping Private Ltd., Singapore and M/s.7 Seas Ship Management Private Ltd., is the Disponent Owner/Bareboat Charterer of the said vessel having its registered office at Union Banking, 71, Tras Street, 10-179, Singapore. The Nova Carriers (Singapore) LTE LTD is the charterer.
5(2). The Plaintiff is carrying on business in RBD Palm Olien Edible Oil and the Plaintiffs Singapore partner is M/s. Wilmar Trading Private Ltd. The Plaintiff, in the course of business, placed an order with the M/s. Wilmar Trading Private Ltd., to export 4,999.956 MTs and 3,299.962 MTs RBD Palm Olein Edible Oil. As per the said Order, 4,999.956 MTs of Oil was to be delivered to the Plaintiff at Puducherry through Karaikal Port and 3,299.962 MTs of Oil was to be delivered to the Plaintiff at Chennai through Chennai Port. 4,999.956 MTs of Oil was contracted for 4,191,463.85 UDS and 3,299.962 MTs of Oil was contracted for 2,710,918.78 USD. Based on the order, the Wilmar Trading Pvt. Ltd. had, in turn, placed the order with M/s. AAA Oils & Fats Pvt. Ltd. Subsequently, M/s. AAA Oils & Fats Pvt. Ltd. loaded/shipped the RBD Palm Olein Edible Oil in the Defendant's vessel MT TITAN VISION at the port of Dumai, Indonesia. The Tanker Bill of Lading dated 22.7.2014 was also signed by the Disponent Owner of the vessel confirming the shipment on board and the destination port for 4,999.956 MTs of oil is at Puducherry and 3,299.962 MTs of Oil is at Chennai. Subsequent to the loading of the oil, the commercial invoice dated 22.7.2014 was raised to Wilmar Trading Private Ltd., who in turn raised the Commercial Invoice dated 25.7.2014 to the Plaintiff.
5(3). The vessel MT TITA
United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar
S.P. & I Association Limited v. M.V. Sea Success I and another
Mayar (H.K) Ltd. and others v. Owners & Parties, Vessel MV Fortune Express and others
Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Limited and others
Chloro Controls India Ltd. v. Severn Trent Inc.
Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India
Liverpool & London SP & I Association Limited v. M.V. Sea Success I & Anr.
D. Ramachandran v. R.V. Janakiraman & ors.
Islamic Republic of Iran v. M.V. Mehrab
H.P. Horticultural Produce Mktg & Processing Corp. Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co.
Interaccess Marine Bunkering v. K.M. Allauddin
Plaintiff reported in Chloro Controls India Ltd. v. Severn Trent Inc.
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.