Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(b) Whether the available ship can be arrested even if the Geneva Convention is to apply.

(c) Whether the available ship can be termed as sister-ship by lifting the corporate veil.

(d) If there is no right in rem qua available ship, whether suit can be maintained for invoking admiralty jurisdiction.

(e) The consequential order.

The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Liverpool and London S.P. & I Association Limited v. M.V. Sea Success I and Another, reported in (2004) 9 SCC, 512 read with the Full Bench decision of Bombay High Court in the case of O.J. Ocean Liner LLC v. M.V. Golden Progress & Anr., reported at 2007(2) Bombay C.R. 1, 1999 Convention is applicable and can be enforced in India, whereas the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 and 18 contended that 1999 Convention is not in force since the minimum number of countries i.e. 10, are not signatories to the Convention and it was submitted that as per the website of United Nations (U.N.), as on 8.2.2011 on the aspects of status of Geneva Convention, it has been mentioned as not yet in force by referring to Article 14 that the Convention shall enter into force in six months following the date on which 10 States have expressed their consent to be bound by it and the signatories in the status are shown as '6' and, in any case, our Country has not ratified the Convention of 1999. It was also submitted that the aforesaid factum appears was not brought to the notice of the Apex Court as well as to the Full Bench of Bombay High Court when the decisions were rendered in the case of Liverpool and London S.P. & I Association Limited v. M.V. Sea Success I and Another (supra) as well as in the case of O.J. Ocean Liner LLC v. M.V. Golden Progress & Anr. (supra). It was also submitted that the Apex Court in the case of Liverpool and London S.P. & I Association Limited v. M.V. Sea Success I and Another (supra) at para 43 did record that certain countries have ratified the convention of 1999 and in the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents No.1 and 18, those countries were present, but they have not ratified.

In the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of O.J. Ocean Liner LLC v. M.V. Golden Progress & Anr. (supra), the Full Bench of High Court had no occasion to consider the restriction read by the Apex Court expressly at paragraph 60 of the aforesaid decision in the case of Liverpool and London S.P. & I Association Limited v. M.V. Sea Success I and Another (supra), nor the Full Bench of High Court had an occasion to consider the matter of limitation provided by Order 38 Rule 1 of CPC as per the law made by the Parliament for the purpose of passing the order of arrest of ship, which is akin to the power of the Civil Court under Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC. Hence, the decision of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of O.J. Ocean Liner LLC v. M.V. Golden Progress & Anr.(supra), in our view would be of no help to the appellant.

Apart from the above, as observed earlier, the Apex Court read at paragraph 60, the limitation for applicability of Convention of 1999, if one of it is not satisfied, 1999 Convention cannot be applied. Even if it is considered for the sake of examination that one may invoke the admiralty jurisdiction for securing the arbitration as observed by the Full Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of O.J. Ocean Liner LLC v. M.V. Golden Progress & Anr. (supra), then also the requirement of contract involving public law character as per our Constitution and law prevailing in our country is not satisfied.