P.P.NAOLEKAR, RUMA PAL
Mayar (H. K. ) LTD. – Appellant
Versus
Owners & Parties, Vessel M. V. Fortune Express – Respondent
Judgment
P.P. Naolekar, J.—Leave granted.
2. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff-appellants challenging the judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dated 23.8.2004 whereby the plaintiffs’ suit filed in Admiralty jurisdiction was directed to remain permanently stayed and the bank guarantee furnished by the defendant-respondents in the suit was directed to stand immediately discharged. The plaintiff-appellants were also directed to pay the costs.
3. Appellant No. 1 Mayar (H.K.) Limited filed admiralty suit in the High Court at Calcutta on 27.3.2000 in admiralty jurisdiction along with appellants Nos. 2 to 5 with whom a contract to sell the goods was entered into by plaintiff/appellant No. 1, against the defendant-respondents alleging, inter alia, that plaintiff/appellant No. 1 (hereinafter called “A-1”) is a company incorporated under the laws of Hong Kong and engaged in the business of export and import of timber logs. By and under a Charter Party Agreement entered into on 7.1.2000 between plaintiff No. 1-Mayar (H.K.) Limited and defendant No. 2-Trustrade Enterprises PTE Ltd., a company incorporated under the appropriate laws of Singapore and carrying on busines
ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal
S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Chittaranjan Mukherji v. Barhoo Mahto
T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal & Anr.
Roop Lal Sethi v. Nachhattar Singh Gill
Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association
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.