Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 39452
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. NATARAJAN, J
KARYAT DOCK WORKS AND BOATYARD – Appellant
Versus
THE ADVENTURE RESORTS & CRUISES PVT. LTD – Respondent
RP NO. 761 OF 2025 | OP(C) NO.775 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.MATHEWS P.GEORGE, KUM.CHITHRA P.GEORGE, SHRI.K.M.GEORGE, SMT.SNEHA HARISANKAR
For the Respondents: SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN
The court affirmed that obligations for the deposit must be fulfilled before any rights to transfer vessel ownership can be realized.
Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act - Order of Court regarding deposit and transfer of vessel ownership - Review petition on grounds of reciprocal obligation of parties - Arguments outlined regarding error in order, obligations for transfer of documents, and necessity of complying with prior orders. (Paras 2, 3, 6, 7, 10)
(B) Review of Order - Number of obligations on both parties emphasized, with specific focus on deposit of amount linked to transfer of vessel - Court found no error in the prior order directing the deposit and allowing for the transfer process to commence after compliance with obligations. (Paras 8, 9, 11)
Facts of the case:
The review petitioner must deposit amounts for the transfer of documents relating to a vessel after a loan, raising questions of obligations and compliance with a prior arbitration award.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that obligations for deposit must be satisfied by the review petitioner before further rights can be realized, maintaining clarity on responsibilities regarding the vessel's transfer.
Issues: The key issues addressed included the interpretation of reciprocal obligations and timing of compliance for document transfer.
Ratio Decidendi: The ruling emphasized that obligations of parties must be sequenced per the award and that non-compliance limits rights in transferring ownership.
Result: Review Petition is disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. review petition purpose and initial order (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. argument on obligations from both parties (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's review and rationale (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court's observations on the obligations. (Para 7 , 9) |
| 5. evaluation of obligations and payment for vessel transfer (Para 8 , 10) |
JUDGMENT (Dated this the 8th day of July, 2025 This review petition is filed by the petitioner for reviewing the order dated 28.05.2025, wherein this Court directed the petitioner to deposit the entire amount and then directed the respondent to get all the documents of the vessel in his name in order to transfer the same in favour of the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is error in the order, where there is a reciprocal obligation on the part of both parties. The respondent/petitioner has not renewed the vessel in his name, and he is dodging the matter and filed a counter in the execution court. The review petitioner has to file an application for renewal, which is not correct. Even as per the judgment of the Supreme Court, there is a reciprocal obligation of both parties. The respondent is allowed to produce all the documents in the execution court for the purpose of transfer and it required more time for getting transfer in his name, but he is not performing his obligation, therefore, the order is required to be reviewed.
3. In support of the case, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Jai Narain Ram Lundiav.Kedar Nath Khetan & Ors., ( AIR 1956 SC 359 ) hence prayed for an order directing the respondent to get all the documents in his name prior to releasing the amount.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no error in the order as per the award, which is in his favour, and the petitioner is required to deposit the entire amount. Thereafter, the respondent shall transfer the vessel in the name of the review petitioner. If he failed to do so, then the review petitioner was directed to file execution before the court for transfer of the vessel in his name. Therefore, this court rightly pass the order saying that there is no error in the order dated 28.05.2025. Hence, prayed for dismissing the same.
5. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent, and perused the order passed by this Court.
6. On a perusal of the records, this court has held in the order that the petitioner is required to deposit the entire amount as per the award passed by the arbitrator. It is also mentioned that an amount of Rs.50 lakhs is said to be borrowed by the respondent herein from the Punjab National Bank by Mortgaging the vessel. Untill other wise the loan is discharged to the Punjab National Bank, he is not in a position to even renew the lisence and transfer the vessel in the name of the petitioner. Therefore, this court accepted the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent, and directed the petitioner to release sum of Rs.50 lakhs, deposited by the review petitioner to the respondent for the purpose of discharging the loan on the vessel from the Punjab National Bank, and the remaining amount of Rs.3,29,240/- shall be deposited to the execution court. The respondent is directed to get all the documents in his name for the purpose of transfer. Hence, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no error in the order passed.
7. Considering the award passed by the arbitrator, in para 54 of Ext.P1 in the original petition which reads as follows;
“54. As and when the amount awarded towards”Sauvar Nigam’ is paid by the respondent he will be entitled to have the “Sauver Nigam” vessel changed to his name as owner there of and the claimant will do all such necessary acts in this regard, falling which the respondent is entitled to get the name of the vesel changed in his name in execution of the award in the Indian vessel Act r/w Rule 24 of the Rules.”
8. On a reading of the award, it says that the peti
