LexPETROMARINE PRODUCTS LTD. versus OCEAN MARINE SERVICES COMPANY LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2015] 4 S.C.R. 1086 PETROMARINE PRODUCTS LTD. v. OCEAN MARINE SERVICES COMPANY LTD. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No.6156 Of 2005) FEBRUARY 17, 2015 [M.Y. EQBAL AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] Merchant Shipping Act, 1958: s. 3(15) - Admiralty jurisdiction - Suit for recovery - Arrest of vessel - Vessel berthed at Madras harbor - Jurisdiction of High Court - Held: When the vessel is berthed at the Madras harbor, the Madras High Court alone D has jurisdiction to entertain any claim against the subject vessel as per provisions of s. 3(15) - On facts, arrest of vessel by the Madras High Court being the first arrest, the vessel and the sale proceeds are custodial legis of the said court and no proceedings in Bombay High Court can be E maintained subsequently without leave of the Madras High Court. s. 3(15) - Madras High Court On'gina/ Side Rules - Or. XU/ r. 3 & 11 -Admiralty jurisdiction -Arrest of vessal F - Issue pertaining to suit for recovery and arrest of vessa/ and payment to be made to various creditors, wherein one of the creditor moving High Court of Bombay and other creditors moving High Court of Madras, where the vessal was stationed - Attachment order passed and transfer of G decree - High Court of Madras holding that the disbursements be made of the sale proceeds received by sale of the ship-motor vessel - Division Bench upheld the said order - Interference with - Held: Not called for - In a H 1086 PETROMARINE PRODUCTS LTD. v. OCEAN 1087 MARINE SERVICES CO. LTD. suit in rem warrant of arrest of vessel is issued by the High A Court, all interested persons shall have a right to intervene and lay their claim by filing an affidavit showing that he is interested in the property under arrest - On facts, in an admiralty proceedings, where several persons have lodged their claim, even the attachment made by Bombay High B Court has to be decided only if an application for payment of attached amount is made - Single Judge of the Madras High Court after hearing all the parties, who had approached the Court, passed the order - Once the decree was transferred and transmitted by the Bombay High Court C to the Madras High Court, appellant could not have moved the Bombay High Court and obtained an order without notice to the creditors and claimants - Act of the appellant shows that it wanted to avoid any contest of its claim by D other creditors/claimants - When the property was in the custody of Madras High Court, being the transferee court of title of priority arisen between the person having decree in his favour and person not being the judgment debtor is to be determined by the transferee court - Further, the E Bombay High Court had given liberty to the appellant to move the Madras High Court for appropriate order for disbursement of amount - Also the Bombay High Court while passing the order of attachment was not aware that the vessel was seized by the Madras High Court much prior F to the filing of the suit by the appellant in Bombay High Court - Division Bench recorded the finding that Madras High Court while deciding the issues in the suit filed under admiralty jurisdiction considered the interest and also priorities of all interveners and also parties to the suit; and G that the appellant ought to have made claim u/Or. XL/I r. 11 as also impleaded the necessary parties - It rightly held that no court is so prestige conscious that it would stand in the way of legitimate legal proceedings for redressal or relief sought for by the litigant - Code of Civil Procedure, H 1088 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 4 S.C.R. A 1908 - 0. XX/ r 52. Shivshankar Gurgar vs. Dilip 2014 (1) SCR 18: (2014) 2 SCC 465; Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. Modern Construction and Company 2013 (10) SCR 466: B (2014) 1 SCC 648; Shaukat Hussain alias Ali Akram and Others vs. Smt. Bhuneshwari Devi (dead) by Lrs. and Others 1973 (1) SCR 1022: (1972) 2 SCC 731 - referred to. c D Case Law Reference 2014 (1) SCR 18 Referred to. Para 26 2013 (10) SCR 466 Referred to. Para 26 1973 (1) SCR 1022 Referred to. Para 27 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6156 of 2005. From the Judgment and Order dated 27.11.2003 of the E High Court of Madras in OSA No. 175 of 1998. Fereshte D. Sethna, Kuber Dewan, B. Vijayalakshmi Menon for the Appellant. F P. B. Suresh, Vipin Nair, Udayaditya Banerjee, Vishnu Shankar Jain, Kushal Bolmal (for Temple Law Firm), N
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.