Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (2.32 seconds)
Documents citing Jayaswal Shipping Company vs The Owners And Parties Interested In ... on 23 December, 1953

M.V. Elisabeth And Ors vs Harwan Investment And Trading Pvt. ... on 26 February, 1992

In decisions such as Jayaswal Shipping Company v. `S.S. Leelavati', AIR 1954 Calcutta 415; Kamalakar Mahadev Bhagat v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., Bombay, AIR 1961 Bombay 186; Rungta Sons Private Ltd. & Anr. v. S.S. `Edison Mariner' & Anr., 1961-62 (66) Calcutta Weekly Notes 1083; National Co. Ltd. v. Asia Mariner, 1967-68 (72) Calcutta Weekly notes 635; Mrs. Sahida Ismail v.Petko R. Salvejkov & Ors., AIR 1973 Bombay 18 and Smt. Reena Padhi v. `Jagdhir', AIR 1982 Orissa 57, the High Courts took an unduly restrictive view of the courts' admiralty jurisdiction by limiting it to what was permitted by the Admiralty Court Act, 1861 and the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890. This was, in our view, an unjustified abdication of jurisdiction and a self-assumed fetter on competence to render justice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 52 - Cited by 291 - T K Thommen - Full Document

Owners Of Ship Tiong Yung vs Shaw Wallace And Co. Ltd. And Anr. on 1 October, 1987

1956. It is not permissible for the Courts in India to rely upon the statutory provisions in England made after 1890, as they have not been made a part of the statutory law of our country. The Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act of 1890 itself indicates that the respective legislature of the Colonies of possessions could amend or modify the law in its application to the respective jurisdiction. A learned judge of the Calcutta High Court in Jayaswal Shipping Co. v. S. S. Leelavati has observed in 1954 as follows : (para 1) "............... The ancient lubmer of admiralty law in India is in need of immediate legislative spring cleaning, so that her citizen of today may be spared in future from the, task of solving such problem of Indianising English Geography by having to interpret English Statutes".
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Hari & Company vs St. Antony'S Traders Having on 28 February, 2011

9. Before we go into the question whether "maritime lien" is created infavour of Plaintiff and supply of "necessaries", it is necessary to briefly refer to the nature and scope of admiralty jurisdiction, the distinction between "maritime lien" and "supply of necessaries". Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Courts in our country is coterminous with the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court of England, as it existed at the time of the passing of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890 by the British Parliament. A brief historical background of this jurisdiction in our country is also found in the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in Kamalakar Mahdev v. S.S.Navigation Co. Ltd. AIR 1961 Bom 186; and the decision of Calcutta High Court in Jayaswal Shipping Co. v. S.S.Leelavati, AIR 1954 Cal 415; and M.V. Elisabeth case [1993 Supp (2) SCC 433 and also by the single Judge of this Court in Interaccess case in 2009 (3) CTC 611.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - R Banumathi - Full Document
1