Disposed

Angre Port Private Ltd. v. Tug Uma Prem (Imo 7850423) and Anr.

Bombay HC18 Feb 2020NMCD/2462/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a notice of motion seeking directions under Bombay HC (O.S.) Rules 951 to determine priority of claims on sale proceeds, the high court granted prayers (d), (e) and (f) of the application, marking the notice of motion as disposed.

What did the court decide?

The court granted prayer clauses (d), (e) and (f) directing priority determination, potential period extension, and publication notice with expenses defrayed from proceeds. Publication offer in Free P

Angre Port Private Ltd. Vs Tug Uma Prem (Imo… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

3.NMS2462.19.doc

¶2

1 / 3

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMMERCIAL DIVISION

¶4

 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2462 OF 2019
IN

¶5

COMMERCIAL ADMIRALTY SUIT NO.54 OF 2019

¶6

Angre Port Private Ltd.)….Applicant/Plaintiff

¶7

 V/s.

¶8

Tug Uma Prem (IMO 8650423))....Defendant

¶9

Mr.Prathamesh Kamat a/w Ms.Pooja Tidke, Ms.Krushi Barfiwala and
Mr.Ryan Mendes i/by Parinam Law Associates for plaintiff/applicant.
[Ms.Radha Mungan, Assistant Manager (Legal) of plaintiff/applicant
present].
Mr.Govind B.Solanke for defendant nos.1 & 2.

¶10

CORAM :K.R.SHRIRAM,J
DATE : 18.2.2020

¶11

P.C.:-

¶12

1.Mr.Kamat appearing for applicant states that pursuant to

¶13

an order dated 28.11.2019, defendant no.1-vessel has been sold and

¶14

the sale proceeds are deposited with the Prothonotary & Senior
Master, High Court, Bombay. Mr.Kamat states his instructions are that
the sale proceeds have been invested in an interest bearing fixed
deposit by Prothonotary & Senior Master. Mr.Kamat states that the
amount was transferred by the Deputy Sheriff to Prothonotary &
Senior Master way back in December-2019 and therefore, the court

3.NMS2462.19.doc

2 / 3

should pass an order and direction under Rule 951 sub-rule 2 of
Bombay High Court (O.S) Rules and decide the priority of claims.

¶19

2.In my view, it is a sensible suggestion. Mr.Solanke
appearing for defendant states that he has no instructions and he will
apply to the Prothonotary & Senior Master for discharge.

¶20

3.In the circumstances, what remains in the Notice of Motion
are prayer clauses-(d), (e) and (f) which are hereby granted. Prayer
clauses-(d), (e) and (f) read as under :-

¶21

“(d) For an order and direction under Rule 951(2)(a) of
the Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules and that the order of
priority of claims against the sale proceeds shall not be
determined until expiry of ninety days or of such other
period as the Court may specify, from the date of deposit
of sale proceeds with the Hon’ble Court;

¶22

(e) For an order and direction under Rule 951(2)(b) of
the Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules that any party to
the suit or any other suit in rem against the Defendant
Vessel No.1 or the sale proceeds thereof may apply to the
court to extend the period specified by the Hon’ble Court
under (d);

¶23

(f) For an order and direction under Rule 951(2)(c) of the
Bombay High Court (O.S) Rules Sheriff shall send for a
publication, in such newspapers, as the Hon’ble Court may
direct, within 7 days of deposit of the sale proceeds a
notice complying with the provisions of sub rule 951(3) of
the Bombay High Court Rules, with the expenses for the
publication of such notice to be defrayed by the Sheriff of
Mumbai directly from the sale proceeds.

¶24

¶25

3 / 3 3.NMS2462.19.doc

¶26

4.As regards prayer clause-(f), Mr.Kamat states that
publication can be in `Free Press Journal’ (English) and `Navshakti’
(Marathi) both Mumbai edition. Mr.Kamat also states on instructions
from Ms.Radha Mungan that plaintiff will issue the notice as per the
draft provided by the office of Prothonotary & Senior Master and claim
the expenses to be reimbursed from the sale proceeds at the
appropriate stage. I see no prejudice would be caused to anybody if
this offer of plaintiff is accepted and the same is hereby accepted.

¶27

5. Notice of Motion accordingly, disposed.

¶28

Angre Port Private Ltd. v. Tug Uma Prem (Imo 7850423) and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Angre Port Private Ltd. v. Tug Uma Prem (Imo 7850423) and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ashishkumar Dineshkumar Patil

The State of Maharashtra Vs Dr.Umakant Laxman Biraris and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Jayawant Tatyaba Khaire

The State of Maharashtra Vs Vilas Santram Sugate

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sadashiv Dattu Mahajan

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sahebrao Chindha Ahire