Allowed

Sajitha v. Owners and Parties Intereseted in the Vessel Mv Sci Mumbai

Kerala HC11 Jan 2021Adml.S./3/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam closed the suit accepting a joint settlement memorandum signed by the parties. It directed the Registry to refund the fixed deposit upon the 1st defendant producing fresh security for the remaining unsuit claim.

What did the court decide?

Suit closed without further orders. Registry directed to act upon return of Fixed Deposit if new security is produced.

Sajitha Vs Owners and Parties Intereseted in… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN TIIE TTIGH COUBT OF KEBAIA AT ER}IAKTILAM

¶2

PRESEIIT

¶3

TTTE HoICOT'RABI,E I&,. fl,STICE DEVAN RaIACHAITDR,AilT

¶4

lilOl[DAY, THE 11TH DAI OF iIAt[UARy 2A2L / 21TH pOuSr|A, Lgttz

¶5

A&1.9..No.3 OF 2O18

¶6

PI.AINTTFFS:

¶7

1 SA.]ITHA
AGED 32 YE,ARS
rglo'lG'sr'Jlt rP, THARiLYTL Houst/ IdALTALIKABA, ![EAR sls4Lp
scttool' !4ArJrAlrKARA P.o., trcc,:rHAI(ItsIAM pARAvttR TAr,tI(,
ERNAKTUI^A}{ DTSTRTCT 68351 5
2 PRAKASIINiI
ACED 74 YE"ARS
S/O.SHAISIqRAN, TTIAR,AYTL HOUSE, }qITIAIiIKAR;A, NEJAR SNMTP SCHOOL,
}IAITANKAR'h' P.o., tlooHrff(UNNAM pAR.A\rttR TAr,t K, ERNAIOT.AM
DTSTRICT 683516 REPRESEN:PM BY TITEIR PO9IER OF ATTORITEY
SAJTTHA.
BABY
AGED 72 YEJAR.S
vo'PRAKAsH, THARAYTT, HousE, tvtttLrA[IKiARiA., NEAR sNMLp scH@t,
MALTAT.|KARA P.o., I'0(I!HAI(UNNAI{ pARAvttR TAr,t K, ER}IAKur.Al{
DTSTRTCT 683516 REPRESENT@ BY TITEIR POVIER OF ATTORNEY
SATTITHA,
GOIDHAM KRISHIiI,A,
AGED I.O YEARS
s/o.MR.sriru Tp, TITARAYTL HousE, I,aLIjANKARA, NEjAR sNMLp
scHooL, MALIANKARA P.o., !rcorHAKuNlIAM pARiavuR TAr,tJK,
ERNAKUT,AM DrsrRrcr 683516 REpREsErrrED By Hrs NATURAL euARDrN[
SAJTTHA.
KRtrSHI,IAVENI,
AGED 6 Y:E.ARs
D/o-la-srrrt rp, THARAYTL HousE, r'ar,rANKARia, NEjAR sNMLp
scH@L, MATJTA\TKAR.A P-o., ttcc,THAt(ll$IaM pAR.avrrR TALI x,
ERI{AKUr.aII! DrsrRrcr 683516 REPRESEIIEED By IIER NAFURAT. GuARDLA]I
SAJITTIA.
BY ADVS.
SR.I .V.,J.I.IATIIEW (Sa. 1
SRI .VTPIN P.VARGHESE
SRT.ADARSII IATHEIV
SRT . DIIJiITTH K.ANTOHAR

¶8

DEFENDANTS:

¶9

¶10

OI{NERS A}{D PARTIES INTERESTED IN THE \IESSEL IA/ SCI MJMBAI
(rldo 9419539) AtD trER ota{ERs eilD /on raaNaeRs At@ /on r,asrtn
AllD Ar.l O"IIER PERsoNg coNcERNED TI|ITERESTED rN HER, A r![Dr,N{
EI,AG VESSEI.' TO@THER WITH HER HULI,, TrcKI.E, ENGINES, GEJARS,
PTANT, !4acHrNERY, ABTrcrJEs, rHrNGs, APPAREL, Eeurp!'GNrs r

¶11

Adnl. S. .tr.o. -? OE 2019

¶12

¶13

sroREs AllD OTIIER PARAPHERI{ALrA oN BOARD, AT PRESENT LyrNG r N IIIE PORT AIID IIARBOTJR OF COCHTN FORT IN INDIE,N TERRITORIAL WATER"S AITD BEPBESIIDIIED BT EER D{ASIEB.S-

¶14

2 3H""fiHrHiXllffrJAD, cocHrN- Gs2oo3.

¶15

D1^. SRI.JOY THAITII ITTOOP

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SRI. SUNrT KU!,AR KURTAKOSE - EP

¶18

rHrs ADMrR;ALSC surl IiAVTNG BEEN FTNALLY HEARD ON 11.01 .202L, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DETI\IERED IHE ETOLITOWING:

¶19

Ad$-f .S..No.3 OE 20tg

¶20

IUDGMENT

¶21

when this suit was cailed today, the rearned counser for the parties are ad idem that the disputes between their clients have been settled under the aegis of the lVediation centre, Ernakulam. They pointed out that a Memoran.dum of joint settlement has also been placed on record.

¶22

I have examined the Memorandum referred above and notice that it has been signed by the parties, as also by their learned counsel; and therefore, see no reason why it cannot be accepted.

¶23

In the afore circumstances, accepting the joint settlement between the parties, I close this suit without any f,urther orders and directing the parties to act implicitly in terms of the said settlement.

¶24

Needless to say, since the matter has been settled through Mediation, the plaintiff/plaintiffs will not be liable to make payment of the court Fee, even though they were allowed to sue as indigent, going by the mandate of Section 69 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits^./aluation Act, tgSg.

¶25

Adlo-l. S. .No.3 OF 2018

¶26

The learned counsel for the L't defendant, sri.Joy Thattil Ittoop, at this time, submitted that there are L 3 other Admiralty suits connected to this case and that towards security for the cJaims in all of them, orle Fixed Deposit for ,Rs,_13,5 cro_res has been furnished in this case. He says that since alr the Suits, except Admiraliy suit No. r. 6/zotg, have been now settled through Mediation, the Registry may be directed to return the Fixed Deposit and he undertakes that his client will furnish a fresh Fixed Deposit for the suit elaim in Admiralty suit No.161201,8 at the earliest.

¶27

when I hear sriJoy Thattil Ittoop, it is ineluctable that the afore mentioned Fixed Deposit has been furnished for the purpose of securing the claims in the fourteen Admiralty suits and since all of them, except Admiralty suit No. L llzoLg has already been settled, they will be entitled to seek return of the same only if the5,- secure the plaint claim in Admiralty suit No.l 6/2OLB suitably.

¶28

Therefore, I further order that the L't defendant will be at liberW to seek return of the Fixed Deposit earlier furnished in this case as soon as they produce a fresh one to secure the

¶29

-Ldn-l.S..No.3 OF 2019

¶30

plaint claim in Admiratty Suit |.lo.L 6i2Oj,B.

¶31

The Registry is directed to act accordingry as and when the new Fixed Deposit is brought on record.

SD/.

DFYAN RAMACHANDRAF{

JUDGE

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM

¶38

(Admiralty Jurisdiction)

¶39

Admiralty Suit No. 3 of 2018

Sajitha and others

Plaintiff

Vs.

Owners and Parties Interested in the Vessel MV SCI MUMBAI (IMO 9419539) and Another

¶44

Defendants

¶45

¶46

REPORT SUBMITTED BYTHE MEDIATOR ADV. RAZIYA P.A.

¶47

Mediated, matter is settled.

¶48

Terms and conditions are attached herewith.

¶49

Dated this the 26h day of November,20}0..

¶50

¶51

dv. Raziya P.A.

¶52

Ernakulam Mediation Centre

¶53

BEF'ORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶54

Admiralty Suit No. 3 of 2018

¶55

Sajitha & Ors

¶56

: Plaintiffs

¶57

-Vs-

¶58

Owners and Parties Interested in the Vessel MV SCI MUMBAI (IMO 9419539) & Anr

¶59

Defendants

¶60

¶61

JOINT SETTLEMENT MEMO SUBMITTED BY THE PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT No.l

VIPIN P.VARGHESE

V.J MATHEW & CO

COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

JOY THATTIL ITTOOP

CALLIDUS LEGAL

COUNSEL FOR THD DEFENDANT NO.l

¶70

)

¶71

BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KTRALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶72

(Admiralty Jurisdictionf

¶73

Admiralty Suit No. 3 of 2018

Sajitha & Ors

Plaintiffs

-Vs-

Owners and Parties Interested in the

¶78

¶79

Vessel MV SCI MUMBAI ( IMO 9419539) & Anr

¶80

Defendants

¶81

JOINT SETTLEMENT MEMO SUBMITTED BY THE PLAINTIFFS AI{D DEFENDANT No.l

¶82

The above suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs claiming compensation from Defendant No.1 on account of th.e death of Late Siju T.P, S/o Prakashan, Tharayil House, Mallyankara, Moothakunnann, Ernakulam, Kerala due to the alleged incident of collision between the vessel MT Desh Shakti and the frshing boat "Oceanic".

¶83

The Plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the said deceased Siju T.p.

¶84

swa€c "F*f^I =F^5$ €.d : s5s .gsl gU' gE

¶85

The Parties, after discussions and deliberations have decided to settle the suit claim of the Plaintiffs against the Defendant No.l, out of court, with the Plaintiffs accepting adequate monetarlr compensation to their complete satisfaction from the Defendant No.1 towards the full and final satisfaction of all their claims in respect of the above suit and incident.

¶86

The settlement reached between the parties is purely on humanitarian grounds and arising out of sympathy towards the present conditions of the Plaintiff sand without admitting to any liability as to the incident or quantum as alleged in the above suit. Further, the Plaintiffs hereby agrees that tl.ey have received the exgratia compensation from the Defendant No.1 as full and final settlement towards any and all past, present and future claims in respect of the subject matter.

¶87

In the above circumstances, the Plaintiffs hereby withdraws the above suit unconditionally making clear that their claim against the Defendant No.1 stands fullv satisfied and discharged and that they shall not have a?trtn€Hftq6fffi fr.

¶88

W^-&dfu- WW

¶89

For THE SHlPPlffi c0RP0RATlOl{ 0F INDIA ttD. [srrl.R.ri+fflp.^y. ttrami cr,rFiE{(il{KftI)' G.n ret lrE|{pr(FlsD

¶90

against the Defendant No.1 hereafter in connection with the subject matter of the suit.

¶91

The Plaintiffs hereby submits that they have no objection in the Honble Court releasing the security furnished by the Defendant No.1 back to them.

¶92

Dated this the 18tt' dav of October 2OI9.

¶93

PIAI\IIFF No.1 :j)\ thq, v.R

¶94

PLAINTIFF No.2 Sqr\hq^.v r?

¶95

A [\\ra> DEFENDANT No.1 Fe^{qrcftq +c-6{ Frrrqft.} Fof TFE SHIPPING^{CORPORATION OFINDIALTD.} c.ff.tffi!fft P. V.^Kulkami ilrc{ffi(fi^qt tsQ / @nerd^{trlanqer (P&!l)}

So.rt \hct'v Q

PLAINTIFF No.4

PLAINTIFF No.5 3ctltfhq,v r.

¶100

UNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT No.l .e d,, G. ,-,-lhq , )lW' 14*?ryL,-

¶101

Kerala State^{Mediation and ConciliationCe ntre} ,&

¶102

ERNAKULAM MEDIAIION CENTRE

¶103

(HIGH COURT HALL)

¶104

Dated:2d EMC/Reg. No..tt.lt ft f

¶105

From

¶106

The Nodal Officer, High Court Mediation Centre.

¶107

¶108

The Registrar (Judicial),' High Court of Kerala, ErnakSrlam

¶109

Sir,

¶110

¶111

Sub:-Mediation of referred cases- Reg.

¶112

¶113

tr C) o^'" YI ,^The report of the Mediator in the matter along with the enclosures is furnished /\1 *'! \ .z I I^t . , \ tv.,^{p.-Ferewith for infonnation and necessaryaction.} ot\ I

¶114

¶115

Yours faithfully, Nodal Officer Ernakulam Mediation Centre

¶116

Encl:- 1-. Report of the Mediator, SettlementAgreemenf (, Urr) 2. copy of referral order dated .zz/.t/t g....of the High court of Kerala.

¶117

Copy of Petition.

Sajitha v. Owners and Parties Intereseted in the Vessel Mv Sci Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajitha v. Owners and Parties Intereseted in the Vessel Mv Sci Mumbai

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

Jijo Alias Vs the Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

K.N.Nafeesa Vs the Authorized Officer/Manager

Jisha Philip Vs the Regional Passport Officer

Anthonyadimai Vs Owners and Parties Interested in the Vessel Mv Sci Mumbai

T.a.Santhosh Vs State of Kerala

Vijayakumar C Vs the Deputy Director of Education