Allowed

Western Bulk Carriers as v. Mv Idon (Ex. Mv Beks Sezin) (Imo 9478755)

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Nov 2024COMS/4/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a petition for correction of record regarding refund of security deposit. The suit for recovery was dismissed as withdrawn, but the registry objected to returning funds due to missing explicit language in the order. The court directed the registry to refund USD 1,165,753/- to the defendants.

What did the court decide?

An order directing the registry to refund USD 1,165,753/- along with interest to the owners of the defendant vessel.

Western Bulk Carriers as Vs Mv Idon… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

»■ Ik

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

¶6

HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI

¶7

I.A No.1 of 2025

¶8

¶9

COMMERCIAL SUIT No.4 of 2024

¶10

Between:

¶11

MV IDON (Ex. MV BEKS SEZIN) (IMO 9478755)A bulk carrier ship flying the flag of Guinea-Bissau presently in the port of Vishakhapatnam within the territorial waters of the State of Andhra Pradesh, India represented by her Master

¶12

...Petitioner/ Defendant

¶13

AND

¶14

WESTERN BULK CARRIERS AS, A company incorporated under^the laws of Norway having its registered office at Henrik Ibsens, Gate 1000257, Oslo, Norway through its Constituted Attorney^Mr.Siddhesh Sham Kshirsagar

¶15

...Respondent/Plaintiff

¶16

Petition under Section 151 of CPC, praying that the High Court may be pleased to list the matter under the caption “For being Mentioned in I.A No.3 of 2024 in C.O.M.S No.4 of 2024 dated 19.12.2024 to correct the inadvertent errors/omissions highlighted herein.

¶17

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner/Defendant

¶19

; Sri D.S.Sivadarshan

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff : Sri K.Gunasekhar

¶21

The Court made the following:

¶22

This petition is filed to list the matter under the caption “for being mentioned” in I.A.No.03 of 2024 in C.O.M.S.No.04 of 2024 dated 19.12.2024 to correct the inadvertent errors/omissions highlighted^herein.

¶23

The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of USD 1,165,768/- with interest @ 7% p.a., from the date of the suit till the date of realization. This Court ordered arrest of the defendant’s vessel vide order dated 04.07.2024. Therefore, the owners of the vessel deposited USD 1,165,663/-^andUSD90/- on 16.07.2024 and 16.10.2024 respectively, for the^{useofthevessel.Thesuit} was dismissed on 07.11.2024 as withdrawn in view of the consent terms filed before this Court, recording as below:

¶24

“3.On behalf of the defendant, Ms.K.Tanusha, learned^{counselD.S.Siva} Darshan, appeared through video conference. The representative of the plaintiff admitted the terms of settlement filed in Court which permit withdrawal of the suit and the amount in deposit made by the defendant^{tobereturnedto} the defendant. 4. Since the terms of compromise are voluntarily and duly confirmed, the suit can be dismissed as withdrawn.” As per the consent term, the defendant is entitled to withdraw the amount deposited into Court as security for release of the vessel. The Registry of the High Court objected for release of^{theamountsincethereisno} direction in the order of this Court for release of the money. Then a petition in I.A.No.03 of 2024 was filed to correct the inadvertent error to incorporate terms of settlement as part of the order. This Court passed order on 19.12.2024 as follows:

¶25

“In the order itself, it is mentioned that the representative of the plaintiff admitted terms of the settlement which permitted withdrawal^ofthesuitand the amount in deposit made by the defendant to be returned^{tothedefendant}

¶26

¶27

and further that since the terms of compromise are voluntarily and duly confirmed, the suit can be dismissed as withdrawn. Only because it is not expressly mentioned that the defendant is permitted^{towithdrawtheamount,} the objection was raised by the registry.

¶28

As such the petition is allowed and para No.7 of the order dated 07.11.2024 shall be read as below: “7. Accordingly, the suit is dismissed as withdrawn in terms of compromise. Refund the plaintiff Rs.2,42,000/- (Rupees two^lakhsforty two thousand only), being 50% of the Court fee deposited by the^plaintiff along with the plaint. Registry shall take appropriate steps^{inthisregard.} Terms^of compromise shall form part of the order”. Even then the Registry took objection VIDE letter 24.01.2025^thatthere is no specific direction to the Registry to allow withdrawal of the amount. Therefore, this petition is filed seeking to modify^theorderto specifically include permission for withdrawal of the amount by the owners of the defendant vessel.

¶29

On 20.02.2025, along with a memo, terms of consent^signedbyboth parties and their advocates as may be submitted to^theRegistry.

¶30

Mr.Siddesh Sham Kshirsagar son of Mr.Sham N.Kshirsagar appeared through online and representing the plaintiff stated^{thathehadfiledaffidavit} consenting for withdrawal of the amount in deposit^{inthissuitbytheownersof} the defendant vessel.

¶31

Sri K.Gunasekhar, the learned counsel for the plaintiff and Sri D.S.Sivadarshan, learned counsel for the defendant are present in Court and identified the party appearing online. In view of withdrawal of the suit as settled out of Court, since the plaintiff did not claim the amount deposited by the owners of^{thedefendantvessel,the} same needs to be returned to the party who deposited it. As such, in addition to the consent given, this Court is of the view that^{theamountindepositshall} be ordered to the owners of the defendant vessel.

¶32

¶33

Accordingly, USD 1,165,753/-, along with interest if any accrued thereon, shall be refunded to the defendant by the^Registry.

¶34

//TRUE COPY//

¶35

Sd/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR SE6Tr^(OFFICER

¶36

¶37

The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh^atAmaravati.

¶38

One CC to Sri K Gunasekhar Advocate [OPUC]

¶39

One CC to Sri D S Sivadarshan, Advocate [OPUC]

¶40

One CC to Sri Vivekananda Ramineni, Advocate [OPUC]

¶41

The Section Officer, Account Section, High Court^{ofAndhraPradeshat} Amaravathi.

¶42

6. Three CD Copies

¶43

Stu sree

¶44

HIGH COURT DATED:20/02/2025

¶45

ORDER

¶46

I.A No.1 of 2025 in COMS.No.4 of 2024

¶47

o
S 2tFEB'2C25 |
. Current Section . ^

¶48

DIRECTION TO THE REGISTRY

Western Bulk Carriers as v. Mv Idon (Ex. Mv Beks Sezin) (Imo 9478755)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Western Bulk Carriers as v. Mv Idon (Ex. Mv Beks Sezin) (Imo 9478755)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Atluri Ram Kiran, Vs Kodali Venkata Subba Rao

Atluri Ram Kiran Vs Kodali Venkata Subba Rao

Kandikattu Mallikarjuna Vs Ashwin Jain

Lss Ocean Transport Dmcc Vs Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd.

The Official Liquidator of M/S. Sree Pattabhi Forge Limited Vs Nil

Smt.Gali Vasumathi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh