CHRISOMAR CORPORATION versus MJR STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

Citation: [2017] 14 S.C.R. 17 · Decided: 14-09-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 14 S.C.R. 17 
CHRISOMAR CORPORATION 
v. 
MJR STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1930 of2008) 
SEPTEMBER 14,2017 
[R. F. NARIMAN AND SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Contract Act, I872 - ss.62, 63 - Applicability of.:.. Vessel in 
question owned by one Third Element Enterprises, a Cyprus 
company :-- Appellant-plaintiff supplied bunkers and other C 
necessaries to the vessel and raised invoices which were not paid 
bv Third Element - Admiralty suit filed by appellant praying for 
arrest of the vessel - Vessel arrested - Subsequently, howeve1; 
appellant did not proceed with the matter as the parties had reached 
.an out of court settlement/agreement dtd. I 8. I .2000 - But, since 
no payment was made to the appellant, the vessel was re-arrested D 
on 2.5.2000 - Respondent no.I filed written statement in the suit 
claiming that it had purchased the vessel through successive transfer 
of title in the vessel hence, no cause of action survived against 
Third Element, the original owner - Single Judge of High Court 
held that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover their dues- Division 
E 
Bench reversed the order - Whether on the day of arrest respondent 
no.I was the owner of the vessel and hence, appellant's claim against 
the original owner, Third Element on the date of institution of the 
suit would not lie -Also, whether in view of s. 62 there was a novation 
of the original agreement as the settlement dtd. I 8.1.2000 was acted 
upon and therefore, the original agreement under which payment 
F 
was due to the appellant need not be performed - Held: For a 
contract that is altered in material particulars, to fall u/s.62 the 
alieration must go to the very root of the original contract and 
change its essential character, so that the modified contrac;t must 
be read as doing away with the original contract - However, in the 
G 
present case, the second agreement/settlement dealt with one leg of 
the original transaction, i.e. the leg of payment which was not made, 
while keeping the original transaction alive- Settlement read as a 
whole does not amount to novation of the original agreement - s. 63 
would apply to the facts of the present case - Further, respondent 
17 
H 
18 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
no. I failed to prove that there was a change of ownership of the 
vessel in its favour on the date of arrest i.e. on 2.5.2000 - Judgment 
of High Court is set aside and the decree of trial court is restored -
Constitution of India - Art. 372 - The Admiralty (Jurisdiction and 
Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 - s.2(1)(/), (g) and ss. 4, 
B 
5, 6, 9, 12, 17 - Brussels Convention of 1952- Art. l (k) -
International Convention of Maritime Lien and Mortgages, 1993-
Arts.4, 8- Brussels Convention relating to the Arrest of Sea-Going 
Ships, 1992- International Convention on the Arrest of Ships, 1999-
Art.3(J)(a) - Letters Patents of 1823, 1862 and 1865 - Admiralty 
Court Acts, 1840 and 1861 - Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 
C 
1890 - Colonial Courts of Admiralty (India) Act,1891- Supreme 
Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925 -Administration of 
Justice Act of 1956 - Supreme Court Act of 1981. 
Admiralty law - Maritime claim and Maritime lien - Difference 
between - Plea of appellant that the necessaries supplied by it to 
D 
the vessel in question were not only maritime claim but also maritime 
lien on the vessel - Held: Important materials wherever supplied to 
a ship for her operation/maintenance would fall within the definition 
of a maritime claim - A maritime lien, on the other hand, attaches to 
the property of the vessel whenever the cause of action arises, and 
E 
F 
travels with the vessel and subsists whenever and wherever the 
action may be commenced - A claim for necessaries supplied to a 
vessel does not become a maritime lien which attaches to the 
vessel - Brussels Convention of 1952 - Art.I (k). 
Admiralty law - Of India and England - History of -
Discussed. 
Admiralty law - Maritime claim - When can be asserted -Held: 
A maritime claim can be asserted only at the time the arrest of the 
vessel is effected and not at the time of the institution of the suit -
International Convention on the Arrest of Ships, 1999 -Art.3(l)(a). 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Admiralty law in England, as was held by Lord 
Halsbury in Currie v. M'Knight, is derived from the laws ofOleron 
and other ancient maritime codes like the Rhodian Sea Law, the 
Basilika,

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.