Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. Sri Sundaram, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff, has pointed out that the cases reported in The Beldis (supra) are from a county court having Admiralty jurisdiction and was governed by the Admiralty Act of 1868 and amendments made to it. According to him, the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court was wider than that of the county Courts and the Indian Courts have the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court in England. But, no such relevant distinction or statutory, provision or decided case has been brought to our notice. He has, however, relied upon two cases viz., The Dictator, 1892 LPD 304 and The Geema, 1899 LPD 285 and contended that the right to proceed against a sister ship in an action in rem under the Admiralty jurisdiction in England has been recognised, sin@e ages and the Administration of Justice Act, 1956, does not confer this right for the first time. The facts in The Dictator (supra) are: The plaintiffs brought an action in rem for value of certain services rendered to that Ship (the Dictator) which was attached. The owners entered appearance and, on their furnishing a bail for 5000 pounds, the Ship was released. After contest, the suit was decreed for a sum of 7,500 pounds, that is, 2,500 pounds in excess of the amount of bail. When the plaintiffs took steps to recover the balance of 2,500 pounds, in execution of the same decree, against the other property of the defendants who had contested the suit, the defendants resisted on various grounds including that in an action in rem only the ship seized could be proceeded against and not the owners. Further, as the bail of 5,000 pounds was accepted, it represented the value of the ship. These objections were negatived by the court on the ground that the owners had appeared and furnished bail and contested the matter. .,The action which originally commenced as an action in rem became an action in personam rendering the contesting owners also liable. It was also held that in such cases bail cannot be treated as an equivalent to the value of the ship.

16. The facts in The Geema (supra) are asunder:

Consequent on a collision in river Thames between a British and a foreign ship, the owners of the British Ship commenced an action in rem and arrested the foreign ship. The owners of the foreign ship appeared, gave bail for the value of the Ship and of freight and got the ship released, and contested the action. As a result, there was a decree in favour of the plaintiffs for a sum in excess of the amount of bail.- When the plaintiffs sought to recover the excess amount, in execution of the same decree, ' by proceeding against the other property of the defendants, the High Court negatived their request on the ground that they could not proceed against anything in excess of the bail granted. The Court of Appeal reversed the said judgment and approved the judgment in the Dictator and held that as the defendants had contested the action, they will be personally liable for the plaintiffs claim. in execution of the decree.

17. Relying on these two decisions, it is contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that where the owners have chosen to appear and contest an action in rem, the action gets converted into an action in personam and the defendants will be liable for the amount claimed. We do not find any rationale helpful to the plaintiff in these cases. The claim in both these actions was in respect of the vessel seized. After the owners had contested the claim, the amount decreed was in excess of the bail or security offered earlier for release of the ship. In such circumstances it was held that the amount of decree in excess of the bail, or probably even the value of the ship could be recovered from the defendants or their properties. Probably, if the owners had not appeared and contested the claim, the sale proceeds of the ship alone would have been the only available asset for the recovery of the decretal amount. These cases do not deal with the question whether a claim against other ships (assuming that they belonged to the same owner) could be included in an action in rem against the seized ship. The learned counsel has, however, fairly stated that there is no reported case, either of an English Court or of our High Court, in support of such proposition.