EPOCH ENTERREPOTS versus M.V. WON FU

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 507 · Decided: 29-10-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: U.C. BANERJEE · Disposal: Leave Granted & Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

EPOCH ENTERREPOTS 
A 
v. 
M.V. WON FU 
OCTOBER 29, 2002 
[UMESH C. BANERJEE AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.] 
B 
Maritime Law: 
Suit for damages against vessel for breach of contract-Agreement for 
transportation of cargo entered with disponent owner of the vessel- C 
Agreement evidenced by Fixture Note-Whether Maritime Lien applicable on 
the basis of the Fixture Note and whether the Fixture Note by itself would 
give rise to a right in rem enabling to initiate proceedings under Admiralty 
Jurisdiction-Held, a claim arising out of an agreement relating to the use 
and/or hire of the ship although a maritime claim but it is not a Maritime D 
Lien-It is restricted to the events of (a) damage done by a ship; (b) salvage; 
(c) seamen 's and master's wages; ( d) master's wage; (e) master's disbursement; 
and (/) bottomry-Jn the facts of the case the contract arises de hors a 
Maritime Lien, no action in rem is possible and hence Admiralty Jurisdiction 
cannot be invoked-Admiralty Court Act, 1861-Jnternational Convention 
for Unification of Certain Rules relating to Maritime Liens and Mortgages, E 
Brussels, 1926-Brussels Arrest (of Seagoing Ships) Convention 1952-
Brussels Maritime Liens Convention 1967. 
Words and Phrases: 
Maritime Lien' and 'Disponent '-Meaning of in the context of mari.time F 
law. 
. Appellant/ plaintiff entered into a contract with defendant/ respondent's 
ship disponent owner to export a cargo. Fixture Note stated of such agree.ment. 
Since the respondent ship did not carry the cargo, appellant flied suit in rem G 
in the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the High Court for arrest of the ship and for 
recovery of damages for breach of contract by reason of loss and damages 
suffered and caused by the ship. The suit was contested by the respondent 
·ship without disclosing the ownership of the ship. Single Judge of the High 
Court dismissed the suit on the ground that since no shipment had taken 
place and as the ship was not involved for the breach of contract by the H 
507 
508 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A disponent owner or any other party, Admiralty Jurisdiction of the Court could 
not be invoked. In appeal, Division Bench of the High Court confirmed the 
view of the Single Judge and dismissed the appeal. 
In appeal to this Court the question for consideration was the 
applicability of Maritime Lien on the basis of the Fixture Note and alternatively 
B as to whether the Fixture Note by itself would give rise to a right in rem thereby 
enabling the appellant to initiate proceedings under Admiralty Jurisdiction 
of the High Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
C 
HELD: I.I. Admiralty Court Act, 1861, read with the International 
Convention for Unification of Certain Rules relating to Maritime Liens and 
Mortgages, Brussels, 1926 read with Brussels Arrest (of Seagoing Ships) 
Convention 1952 and Brussels Maritime Liens Convention 1967 clearly 
indicate that a claim arising out of an agreement relating to the use and/or 
D hire of the ship although a maritime claim would not be liable to be classified 
as maritime Hen. 1518-B, C) 
1.2. Maritime lien can be said to exist or restricted to in the event of (a) 
damage done by a ship; (b) salvage; (c) seamen's and master's wages; (d) 
master's wage; (d) master's disbursement; and (e) bottomry; and in the event 
E a maritime lien exists in the aforesaid five circumstances, a right in rem is 
said to exist. Othenvise, a right in personam exists for any claim that may 
arise out of a contract. The limited applicability of such a lien thus well 
illustrates that not every kind of service or every kind of damage which arises 
in connection with a ship gives rise to a maritime lien. This is apart from the 
statutory enactments which may further list out various other forms of 
F maritime claims.1518-E, F; 519-C, DJ 
M. V. Elisabeth v. Harwan Investment and Trading Pvt. ltd. Goa, AIR 
(1993) SC 1014 and M. V. Al Quammar v. Tsavliris Savage (International) 
ltd. and Ors., 120001 8 SCC 278, referred to. 
G 
The Bold Bucc/eugh (1851) 7 Meo P.C. 267; The Tervaete (1922 (P) 
259, referred to. 
Encyclopedia Britannica; Thomas on Maritime liens; Rippon city (1897) 
226, 246, referred to. 
H 
2.1. Even, however, assuming the agreement has in fact been entered 
[_
. EPOCH ENTERREPOTS v. M.V. WON FU [BANERJEE, J.] 
509 
into by the disponent owner, unless sufficient evidence is laid that the charter A 
was by demise, whereby the possession and control of the ves

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