Disposed

Navios Corporation v. M.V. Fu Jin and Anr. and M.V. Star Hill

Bombay HC4 Jun 2010NMS/1466/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court Admiralalty Court vacated the arrest order of vessel m.v. STARHILL at the plaintiff's request, permitting it to sail forthwith without prejudice to the plaintiff's contentions. The court dispensed with the instrument of release due to the absence of a caveat.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 9th April 2010 arresting the vessel m.v. STARHILL stands vacated; vessel permitted to sail forthwith.

Navios Corporation Vs M.V. Fu Jin and Anr. and M.V… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

jpc/-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ADMIRALITY AND VICE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION

¶4

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 556 OF 2010

¶5

¶6

ADMIRALTY SUIT NO. 8 OF 2010

¶7

AND

¶8

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1466 OF 2010

¶9

¶10

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 556 OF 2010

¶11

¶12

ADMIRALTY SUIT NO. 8 OF 2010

Navios Corporation

.. Plaintiff

Versus

m.v. FU JIN

and others

.. Defendants

Mr. P. S. Pratap i/by Mr. Manoj Khatri for the Plaintiff

¶20

Mr. Vishal Sheth a/w Mr. Devasis Mitra, Miss Hetal Shah i/by Singhania Legal Services for the proposed defendant No.3

¶21

CORAM : SHRI S. J. KATHAWALLA .J. DATE : 4th June, 2010.

¶22

P.C.:

¶23

1. Chamber Summons No. 556 of 2010 is taken out by the plaintiff to join proposed defendant No.3 to the plaint. The chamber summons is allowed in terms of prayer clauses- (a) and (b). The necessary amendment to the plaint be carried out within two weeks from today.

¶24

¶25

2. By the above Notice of Motion No. 1466 of 2010, the Defendant No.3 has sought release of the vessel m.v. STARHILL which was arrested by an order passed by this Court dated 9th April, 2010.

¶26

3. By consent of the parties the following order is passed:

¶27

i. In view of developments subsequent to the order of arrest, the Plaintiff does not wish to press their claims against the vessel m.v. STARHILL and submit without prejudice to their rights and contentions that the said vessel be released from arrest.

¶28

ii. The plaintiff disputes and denies each and every statement, averment, submission, contention and allegation contained in the Affidavit-in support of the above Notice of Motion No. 1466 of 2010 and the Affidavit in reply to Chamber Summons No. 556 of 2010.

¶29

iii. In view thereof, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the plaintiff the order dated 9th April, 2010 ordering arrest of vessel m.v. STARHILL stands vacated and the said vessel is permitted to sail forthwith.

¶30

iv. Defendant No. 3 reserves its right to claim losses/damages from the plaintiff due to arrest.

¶31

¶32

v. The counsel for the defendant no. 3 states that there is no caveat against release of the vessel. Instrument of release dispensed with.

¶33

vi. Sheriff, Port, Customs and other statutory authorities to act on the ordinary copy of the order duly authenticated by the Associate of the Court.

¶34

vii. Sheriff to intimate the Port, Customs and other statutory authorities by fax at the cost of the Advocate representing the third defendant.

¶35

4. Above Notice of Motion as well as the Chamber Summons accordingly disposed of.

Navios Corporation v. M.V. Fu Jin and Anr. and M.V. Star Hill

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Navios Corporation v. M.V. Fu Jin and Anr. and M.V. Star Hill

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Star India Private Limited Vs ----------------------------

Udasyshankar Bansraj Mishra and 6 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Fem Care Pharma Limited Vs -----------------------------------

Pushpa S.Dhaktode Vs the Versova Education Trust and Ors.

Organon (India) Limited Vs ---------------------------------

Vitthal Jankar Vs Versova Education Trust and Ors.