M.V. AL. QUAMAR versus TSAVLIRIS SALVAGE (INTERNATIONAL) LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 440 · Decided: 17-08-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
M.V. AL. QUAMAR 
v. 
TSAVLIRIS SALVAGE (INTERNATIONAL) LTD. AND ORS. 
AUGUST 17, 2000 
[S.B. MAJMUDAR AND UMESH C. BANERJEE, JJ.] 
Admiralty law : 
Admiralty Courts Act, 1890-Section 15-Civil Procedure Code, 1908-
Sections 44-A, 112(2) and 140-Execution Petition-For execution offoreign 
judgment passed in admiralty jurisdiction-Maintainability of-Applicability 
of Section 44-A-Held, Section 44-A of CPC indicates an independent right, 
conferred on to a foreign decree holder for enforcement of its decree in lndia-
The factum of the passing of the decree and the assumption of jurisdiction 
pertaining thereto, do not obstruct the full play of the provisions of the Sec-
D 
lion-Section 112(2) of CPC does not render the Code completely inapplicable 
E 
F 
G 
to admiralty cases. 
High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division, Admiralty Court, 
passed a decree in favour of respondent No. 1 who had claimed damages 
for repudiation of an LOF salvage contract, against respondent No. 2, the 
owner of the petitioner/vessel. When the vessel was found anchored in 
Vishakhapatnam Port, falling within the jurisdiction of Andhra Pradesh 
High Court, respondent No. 1 filed an Execution Petition before Single 
Judge of the High Court under Section 15 of the Admiralty Courts Act and 
Section 44-A r/w. Order 21 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code, for execution 
of the decree. 
During pendency of the Execution Petition, decree holder prayed for 
interim order of warrant of arrest/attachment against the vessel. Single 
Judge granted interim relief on a prima facie view that the Execution 
Petition could be filed in the High Court which had otherwise original 
admiralty jurisdiction. 
Appellant filed petition to vacate the interim order on the ground 
that since the vessel was transferred bonafide to "Q" for valuable consid-
eration, who was not party to the original suit, the vessel could not be 
H 
attached for execution of decree against respondent No. 2, the original 
440 
M.V. AL. QUAMAR v. TSAVLIRIS SALVAGE (INTERNATIONAL) LTD. 
441 
owner. Single Judge ordered early hearing of the Execution Petition and 
A 
continuance of the interim order. Division Bench held that the Execution 
Petition was maintainable and directed the petition to be heard on merits. 
In appeal to this court appellant contented that Section 44-A CPC 
could not be invoked for enforcement of foreign judgment in the High 
Court because in view of Section 112(2) CPC, the Code cannot be made 
B 
applicable to any matter of criminal or admiralty or vice admiralty juris-
diction; and that since the judgment of the English Court is judgment in 
personam, the Execution Petition for the arrest of the vessel and subse-
quent order thereon is not maintainable since arrest of a ship operates in 
rem and not in personam; and that a vessel may be arrested for obtaining 
C 
satisfaction of the claim or the execution of a decree in rem especially in a 
maritime action having maritime lien, only when a decree in rem is passed, 
and therefore, the decree holder has to proceed only against the judgment 
debtor and not against the vessel. Appellant alternatively contended that 
assuming section 44-A CPC is applicable for the execution of a decree in 
personam obtained from an Admiralty Court in Britain but since Section 
D 
44-A is not a self-contained code for execution of a decree, the same is not 
exhaustive and the same, as a matter of fact does not displace the common 
law and it has to be read along with the well settled principles of common 
law in matters relating to execution of decree for a sum of money. The 
respondent contended that it is of no significance if the judgment be termed 
E 
to be the judgment in rem or judgment in personam especially in the facts 
of the matter under consideration having due regard to the domestic law 
and in particular Section 44-A CPC. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : Per Banerjee, J. 
1.1. The Admiralty jurisdiction of the Andhra Pradesh High Court 
does not stand 'frozen' or 'atrophied' in any way whatsoever. The legal 
fiction created by Section 44-A makes the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the 
Court which passed the decree and as such the competency of the High 
Court to entertain the execution proceeding cannot be doubted in any way. 
[449-F-G; 474-G] 
M. V. Elisabeth and Ors. v. Harwan Investment and Trading Private Ltd. 
Hanoekarr House, Swatontapeth, Vasco-De Gama, Goa, etc., [1993) Suppl. 2 
sec 433, referred to. 
F 
G 

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