Calcutta High Court
Tarsons Products Limited vs The Owners And Parties Interested In The ... on 2 September, 2025
Author: Arindam Mukherjee
Bench: Arindam Mukherjee
OCD-3
ORDER SHEET
IA No.GA-COM/2/2025
IN
AS-COM/1/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION
(COMMERCIAL DIVISION)
ORIGINAL SIDE
TARSONS PRODUCTS LIMITED
VS.
THE OWNERS AND PARTIES INTERESTED IN THE VESSEL MV SOL
PROGRESS (IMO NO.9322865) & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE
Date: 2nd September, 2025.
Mr. Swatarup Banerjee, Mr. Sourav Kr. Mukherjee, Mr. Rohit Mukherjee, Mr. Satyaki Mitra, Ms. Swastika Sengupta, Advocates for defendant no.2.
Mr. Krishnaraj Thaker, Sr. Adv.(VC), Ms. Sneha Singhania, Ms. Shabana Khatun, Advocates for the plaintiff.
Mr. Souvik Kundu, Adv. for defendant no.1.
The Court : Affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the plaintiff to this demurer application of the defendant no.2 is taken on record.
The defendant no.2 says that its name should be expunged from the array of defendants in the above Admiralty suit as the plaintiff has no cause of action as against the said defendant and the plaint also discloses none on a meaningful reading of the plaint. It is further submitted by the said defendant that the Court assumes admiralty jurisdiction only when a vessel is within its territorial water subject to there being a maritime claim in 2 favour of the plaintiff. In the instant case, according to the defendant no.2, neither from the statements made in the plaint or from the documents annexed thereto it will appear that the defendant no.2 is the owner of the vessel. The defendant no.2 is not a bareboat charterer or a Manager or a demise charterer of the vessel. There is no privity of contract between the defendant no.2 and the plaintiff. Neither the plaint speaks about any contract nor such fact is apparent from the documents disclosed by the plaintiff. It is also submitted that since the suit has been filed in the Commercial Division, all documents in the possession and custody of the plaintiff were to be annexed with the plaint. There is also no maritime claim against the said defendant or appears from the plaint and the documents annexed thereto.
The document referred to in paragraph 10 of the plaint wherein the name of the defendant no.2 figures for the first time will clearly show that such document was not issued by the defendant no.2 in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, going by the provision of Sections 2, 3 and 5 of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 [hereinafter referred to as 'the 2017 Act'] with reference to the statements made in the plaint and the documents disclosed, the plaintiff has no cause of action as against the defendant no.2 to file and maintain an admiralty suit against the said defendant. The name of the defendant no.2, therefore, should be expunged from the array of defendants primarily on the ground that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant no.2, there is no maritime claim in favour of the plaintiff as against the 3 defendant no.2 and the admiralty jurisdiction is not attracted in the facts as alleged in the plaint.
The defendant no.2 has relied upon a judgment reported in 1993 Supp. (2) SCC 433 (M. V. Elisabeth And Others Vs. Harwan Investment And Trading Pvt. Ltd., Hanoekar House, Swatontapeth, Vasco-De-Gama, Goa) in support of its contention. Relying upon paragraph 82 of the said judgment the defendant no.2 says that the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court has not been attracted in the instant case as against the defendant no.2.
The matter is adjourned and shall appear on 16th September, 2025.
(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.) pa