Allowed

M.V. Global Purity and Anr. v. Union of India

Bombay HC27 Mar 2012APP/116/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay allowed two appeals against orders rejecting notices of motion to release an arrested vessel. The Court set aside the lower court's orders requiring full suit claim security, relying on a prior decision linking security to independent vessel valuation. Matters were restored for independent valuation without granting a stay of the judgment.

What did the court decide?

Appeals allowed; impugned orders set aside; notices of motion restored for independent valuation; no stay of operation of judgment.

M.V. Global Purity and Anr. Vs Union of India — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

srk

¶3

App-116-12 with App-117-12

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.116 OF 2012

¶5

¶6

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1616 OF 2011 IN

¶7

ADMIRALTY SUIT NO.17 OF 2010

¶8

M.V. Global Purity and another. ... Appellants Versus Union of India ... Respondent

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

ALONGWITH APPEAL NO.117 OF 2012 IN

¶11

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2230 OF 2011 IN

¶12

ADMIRALTY SUIT NO.23 OF 2010

¶13

M.V. Global Purity and another. ... Appellants

¶14

Versus

¶15

The Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai and others.

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

Mr. I.M. Chagla, Senior Advocate with Mr.Abhimanyu Singh and Mr.V. Subramaniam for the appellants.

¶18

Mr.Rahul Narichania with Mr.Som sinha i/by M/s. D.H. Shah for the respondents.

¶19

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & RANJIT MORE, J. Tuesday, March 27, 2012

¶20

¶21

srk

¶22

App-116-12 with App-117-12

¶23

P .C.

¶24

Both these appeals are directed against the order dated 27 January 2012 of the learned Admiralty Judge, rejecting the notices of motion taken out by the respondents-defendants in the Admiralty Suit Nos.17 of 2010 and 23 of 2010 filed by the Union of India through the Director General of Coast Guard.

¶25

The learned Single Judge dismissed both the notices of motion by which the defendants in the admiralty suit had prayed that the vessel be released from arrest pursuant to the order of arrest passed by the Admiralty Court earlier, upon the defendants depositing the value of the vessel M.V. Global Purity.

¶26

The learned Admiralty Judge rejected the prayer on the ground that the plaintiffs are entitled to claim security on the entire suit claim of Rs.169.14 crores. While rejecting the appellants-defendants' contention, the learned Admiralty Judge relied upon his own order dated 16 November 2011 in Notice of Motion No.1525 of 2011 in Admiralty Suit No.23 of 2010 in Union of India v. M.V.Nordalake and another.

¶27

The aforesaid order dated 16 November 2011 of the learned Admiralty Judge was challenged in Appeal No.30 of 2012 and by judgment dated 7 March 2012, we set aside the said order after taking the view that when value of the arrested vessel is less than the plaintiff's best arguable case in an Admiralty Suit for damages, the value of security which the Admiralty Court may call upon owner of the arrested vessel to furnish will not exceed value of the arrested vessel as independently assessed.

¶28

¶29

srk

¶30

App-116-12 with App-117-12

¶31

Following the aforesaid decision, we allow both these appeals and set aside the impugned orders passed by the learned Admiralty Judge.

¶32

Since in this case also, the plaintiffs are challenging the valuation report relied upon by the defendants, after setting aside the impugned orders of the learned Admiralty Judge, we restore the notices of motion Nos.17 of 2010 and 23 of 2010 on the file of the learned Admiralty Judge for the purpose of deciding the same after getting independently assessed the value of the vessel. Accordingly, we allow both the appeals.

¶33

At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs pray for stay of operation of the judgment for some time in order to enable the plaintiffs to have further recourse in accordance with law.

¶34

The learned counsel for the appellant-defendant opposes the prayer.

¶35

In view of the fact that the learned Admiralty Judge is to get an independent valuation of the arrested vessel made, which process is likely to take at least four weeks time, we decline to grant the prayer for stay with an observation that even if the independent valuation is made and security is furnished in the meantime, the vessel will not be released from arrest for a period of four weeks from today.

¶36

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶37

RANJIT MORE, J .

M.V. Global Purity and Anr. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.V. Global Purity and Anr. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Premnath Tukaram Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ajaykumar Santosh Kesarwani and Ors. Vs Rashmi Ajaykumra Kesarwani and Anr.

Mumbai Taximen Sangathan and 3 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

The Bank of New York Mellon Vs Zenith Infotech Ltd. and 5 Ors.

Cambata Viation Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Sudhakar v. Damble Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax and 3 Ors.