Allowed¶¶29

Ssl Brahmaputra Imo 9238806 v. Baltic shipping private limited

Amendment of written statement – clarificatory amendment – Admiralty suit

Bombay HC25 Apr 2025IA/1369/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court Admiralty; Interim Application 1369 of 2025 in Commercial Admiralty Suit 33 of 2024; Baltic Shipping Private Limited v. SSL Brahmaputra IMO No.9238806; amendment of written statement; clarificatory amendment; Schedule A; no objection by Plaintiff; not barred by limitation; cause of action unaltered; two weeks to carry out amendment; affidavit of service; Abhay Ahuja J.; 4 July 2025; allowed and disposed.

What did the court decide?

Amendment of the written statement permitted in terms of prayer clause (a); amendment to be carried out within two weeks; amended written statement to be served upon the Plaintiff within two weeks thereafter with an appropriate affidavit of service. ¶¶29

Ssl Brahmaputra Imo 9238806 vs Baltic shipping private limited — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the amendment to the written statement sought by the Applicant (Original Defendant No.1) in terms of Schedule A ought to be allowed.

¶¶27

Court's answer

The Court held the amendment to the written statement to be clarificatory and intended to avoid confusion, and therefore permitted it.

¶¶24

Ratio / Principle

The Interim Application was allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), permitting the amendments in the Written Statement as sought in Schedule A.

¶¶25

Key takeaways

The amendment as per Schedule A to the written statement was directed to be carried out within a period of two weeks.ratio¶¶28
The amended written statement was directed to be served upon the Plaintiff within two weeks thereafter, with an appropriate affidavit of service to be filed.ratio¶¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Amendment of written statement — clarificatory amendment — Admiralty suit — Defendant No.1 (vessel 'SSL Brahmaputra IMO No.9238806') sought to amend paragraph 1 of its written statement, substituting references to 'the Defendant' with 'Defendant No.1' and redefining 'the Cargo' as the cargo allegedly carried by the Plaintiff; amendments stated by counsel to be bonafide, clarificatory, neither barred by limitation nor altering the cause of action (counsel's submission); Plaintiff's counsel raised no objection; HELD, the amendment being clarificatory and in order to avoid confusion was permitted in terms of prayer clause (a); amendment to be carried out within two weeks and the amended written statement served on the Plaintiff within two weeks thereafter with an appropriate affidavit of service; Interim Application allowed and disposed. (High Court of Bombay, Admiralty and Vice Admiralty Jurisdiction, Abhay Ahuja J., 4 July 2025)

¶1

31-IA-1369-2025.doc

¶2

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

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1369 OF 2025 IN

¶4

COMMERCIAL ADMIRALTY SUIT NO.33 OF 2024

¶5

SSL Brahmaputra IMO No.9238806 …Applicant (Original Defendant No.1)

¶6

In the matter Between : Baltic Shipping Private Limited ...Plaintiff V/s. SSL Brahmaputra IMO No.9238806 And Another …Defendants

¶7

WITH COMMERCIAL ADMIRALTY SUIT NO.33 OF 2024

¶8

Ms.Sanjana Muttath i/b Rex Legalis, Advocate for the Plaintiff. Mrs.Naira Jeejeebhoy a/w Mr.Ruchir Goenka, Ms.Deepanshi Kapoor i/b Bose & Mitra & Co., Advocate for the Respondent No.1.

¶9

CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 4^th JULY, 2025

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

Interim Application No. 1369 of 2025

¶12

Ms. Jeejeebhoy, learned Counsel appears for the Respondent No.

¶13

1 and submits that this Interim Application seeks amendment to the

¶14

written statement in terms of Schedule A.

Nikita Gadgil

1/3

31-IA-1369-2025.doc

It is submitted that the Applicant has in paragraph 1 of the written statement stated that “References to “the Defendant” are references to both Defendant No. 1 and the Registered Owners of Defendant No.1 and unless otherwise stated, the references to “the Cargo” are to the Plaintiff’s cargo.”, which the Applicant seeks to amend and be substituted by “References to “the Defendant No.1” are references to both Defendant No.1 and the Registered Owners of Defendant No.1 as contextually appropriate and also that unless otherwise stated the references to “the Cargo” are to the cargo allegedly carried by the Plaintiff” and additionally, all references to “the Defendant/Defendant No.1/Answering Defendant etc.” as mentioned in the Written Statement be substituted by the “Defendant No.1”.

¶19

Ms. Jeejeebhoy submits that the Application is made bonafide and in the interest of justice and the amendments sought are only clarificatory and is neither barred by limitation and nor alters the cause of action and that the same be permitted in the interest of justice.

¶20

Ms. Muttah, learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff has no objection if the amendment to the written statement is permitted.

Nikita Gadgil

2/3

31-IA-1369-2025.doc

Having heard the learned Counsel and having considered the submissions, this Court is of the view that the amendment to the written statement being clarificatory and in order to avoid confusion, the said amendment be permitted.

¶25

Accordingly, the Application is allowed in terms of prayer Clause

¶26

(a), which reads thus:-

¶27

“(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to allow the amendments in the Written Statement as sought in the Schedule A of the present Interim Application”.

¶28

The Amendment as per Schedule A to the written statement be carried out within a period of two weeks. Let the amended written statement be served upon the Plaintiff within a period of two weeks thereafter and an appropriate affidavit of service be filed in this regard.

¶29