Skip to main content

Ship can’t be kept docked over detained cargo

In a judgment that will bring cheer to ship owners, the Bombay high court has said that a ship cannot be barred from sailing off merely because its cargo has been detained by a court order in a dispute between two other entities. Coming to the aid of Vietnam-registered MV Ocean 39, the HC on Monday said the company that sought attachment of its cargo must offload it and store it elsewhere by June 29 at its own cost.

Justice SJ Kathwalla passed the judgment in a plea made by Hoang Anh Shipping JSC to let its ship set sail immediately from Tuticorin port and harbour where it has been docked since March 15. A court had passed an ex-parte arrest order to detain nearly 4,700 tonnes of sand and cement on board, after Cupid Shipping, a Singapore-based company, approached it against a Maldives-based company, Blue Metal Investments Pvt Ltd. Cupid wanted the cargo attached as additional security in a dispute it had with Blue Metal. Cupid had neither sought nor got the ship arrested.
Three months later, the ship owners through their counsel Prathamesh Kamat said the ship's seaworthiness classification was up for renewal for which it needs to dry dock on a foreign port immediately. He said the ship is an "innocent third party caught in a dispute it has nothing to do with". He and amicus curiae Venkatesh Dhond argued that Cupid which wants the cargo as security cannot refuse to pay for its offloading and storage. Counsel for Cupid Bimal Rajsekhar argued that since the ship wants to sail, her owner must pay.
There is another dispute over the cargo's ownership. India-based Siva Agencies said it had rights over the cargo for which it moved the HC to have the arrest order vacated. The judge said if Cupid fails to offload the cargo by Wednesday, the arrest order would stand vacated.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amen

Distinction between “Loss to the Estate” and “Loss of Estate”

A subtle but fundamental distinction between “Loss of Estate” and “Loss to the Estate” was discussed in Omana P.K. and others v. Francis Edwin and others (2011 (4) KLT 952). This Judgment was challenged before the Apex Court, which has now dismissed the Appeal. The question raised in this case, was whether a certain sum which the dependants received as compensation for untimely death of Judgment debtor in a motor accident is attachable in Execution Proceedings. In this case, Justice Thomas P. Joseph speaking for the Kerala High Court had held the following (relying on The Chairman, A.P.S.R.T.C, Hyderabad vs. Smt. Shafiya Khatoon and Others) Capitalized value of the income spent on the dependents, subject to relevant deductions, is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of his family through his death. The capitalized value of his income, subject to relevant deductions, would be the loss caused to the estate by his death. In other words, what amount the dependents would have got le

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a