C/CA/4207/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4207 of 2019

In

F/SECOND APPEAL NO. 40080 of 2019

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A. P. THAKER

Sd/-

================================================================

1

Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed

to see the judgment ?

No

2

To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

No

3

Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy

of the judgment ?

No

4

Whether this case involves a substantial question

of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution

of India or any order made thereunder ?

No

================================================================

ANUPAM PORT CRANES CORPORATION LIMITED

Versus

SCAN SHIPPING PTE. LIMITED

================================================================

Appearance:

MR KAMLESH P VAIDANKAR(10135) for the Applicant(s) No. 1

NILU K VAIDANKAR(8382) for the Applicant(s) No. 1

for the Respondent(s) No. 1

MR HARSH N PAREKH(6951) for the Respondent(s) No. 1

================================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A. P. THAKER

Date : 09/06/2022

CAV JUDGMENT

1.

This is an application preferred by original plaintiff for

condonation of delay of 508 days in preferring Second Appeal.

The applicant is the original plaintiff and respondent is original

defendant. For the purpose of brevity and convenience the

parties are referred to as “the plaintiff” and “the defendant”.

Page 1 of 30

C/CA/4207/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2022

2.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and

decree passed by first appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal

No.8 of 2018 dated 16.4.2018, whereby the first appellate

Court has rejected the appeal filed by the plaintiff against

dismissal of his suit by learned Senior Civil Judge, Rajula, being

Special Civil Suit No.67 of 2017. By the impugned order, the

trial Court has allowed application of the defendant filed under

Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code and has rejected

the plaint with a finding that in view of Section 5 of Arbitration

and Conciliation Act, 1996 the suit filed by the plaintiff is

barred by law. This finding of the trail Court came to be

challenged by the plaintiff before District Court, Amreli, by

filing Regular Civil Appeal No.8 of 2018, whereupon it was

heard by 2^nd Additional District Judge, Rajula, Amreli, and

rejected the appeal filed by the plaintiff. The trial Court has

observed that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and

directed the appellant to avail the remedy as may be available

under law.

2.1

It is contended by the plaintiff that suit was filed on the

basis of a contract dated 25.11.2013 entered into between the

parties for sea transportation of grains from Pipavav Port to

Turkey. That since bank of the plaintiff insisted for bank

guarantee for releasing 20% advance amount, the respondent-

defendant suggested to enter into a Charter Party Agreement

so that on the basis of Charter Party Agreement, 20% advance

amount can be released to the respondent. It is contended that

said Charter Party Agreement was never acted upon and the

contract was concluded and the entire payment of the

contracted amount was made to the respondent. The

Page 2 of 30

C/CA/4207/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2022

respondent raised further claim for additional services

allegedly provided by it and also demurrage charges incurred

by it. The plaintiff has also made counter-claim against

respondent for damages suffered by it. That there was an

arbitration clause in the contract, as per which the arb