Calcutta High Court
Transfield Er Cape Limited vs The Owners And Parties Interested In The ... on 21 May, 2009
Author: I.P. Mukerji
Bench: Surinder Singh Nijjar, I. P.Mukerji
G.A.NO. 1380 OF 2009
APOT NO. 183 OF 2009
A.P.O.NO. OF 2009
G.A.NO.1257 OF 2009
A.S.NO. 8 OF 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(In appeal from an Order passed in its
Admiralty Jurisdiction)
Original Side
Transfield ER Cape Limited
-versus-
The Owners and Parties Interested in the Vessel M.V."Cape Athens"
For appellant/petitioner : Mr. Tilak Kumar Basu with
Mr. K.Thakkar
Mr. Partha Basu and
Mr. Sudhakar Prasad, Advocates
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Asit Ranjan Dey, Advocate
For Respondent No.2 : Mr.Swatarup Banerjee and Mr. S.Roy, Advocates For Royal Bank of Scotland : Mr. Ranjan Bachawat with Mr. Reetobrata Mitra, Advocates BEFORE The Hon'ble Mr. SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, CHIEF JUSTICE AND The Hon'ble JUSTICE I. P.MUKERJI.
May 21, 2009 THE COURT : There shall be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the application.
We have heard the counsel for the parties. We have also perused the order passed by the learned single Judge. It has been vehemently argued before us that the impugned order has been passed by the learned single Judge 2 merely on mention being made. Furthermore, the security initially orderd to be furnished has been reduced to a mere fraction of the amount claimed without justification.
On the other hand, it has been submitted before us by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the suit has been filed in the Admiralty Jurisdiction wholly without any basis as the claim made by the plaintiff-appellant is a claim for damages. Therefore, the suit under the Admiralty Jurisdiction would not be maintainable. This apart, it is stated that the new owners of the vessel i.e. the defendant-respondent No.1 have already furnished security as directed by the Admiralty Court by Order dated 11th of May 2009. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 further submitted that the claim made by the plaintiff-appellant on the quantum of damages is wholly bogus and is not supported by any materials.
These submissions are countered by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant with the submission that the plaintiff-appellant merely needed to plead the best possible arguable case to secure an order of security from the Court. Taking into consideration the entire pleadings of the plaintiff-appellant, the learned single Judge has been pleased to initially direct the furnishing of the security in the sum of amount claimed , but the same has been subsequently reduced without any change in circumstances.
We have taken into consideration the entire case as pleaded and also the submissions made. We are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the learned single Judge at this stage does not call for any interference. We, 3 however, make a slight modification to the effect that the interim order granted by the Trial Court shall continue subject to the defendant-respondent No.1 furnishing necessary undertaking to the Registrar, Original Side of this Court to the effect that in the event the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant succeeds, either the Vessel will be brought back to Kolkata Port or the security will be furnished in accordance with the order that may be passed by the Coutrt. It is made clear, until the necessary undertaking is given, the Vessel shall not sail away from within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
With the above directions, both the appeal and the application are disposed of.
The appellant is permitted to transmit a copy of this order by Facsimile to the appropriate authorities.
Registrar, Original Side of this Court and all parties are to act on a xerox signed copy of this order on the usual undertaking.
( SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, C.J.) ( I.P. MUKERJI, J.) Rsg.
Asst.Registrar (CR)