Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 43 (1.09 seconds)

Market vs Navbharat International Ltd. on 23 March, 2010

That decision must be seen in the backdrop of the issue and question framed by the Supreme Court for its consideration. Therein, the involvement of the vessel was never in dispute. Therein, the vessel itself was impleaded as a party to the Suit and was before the Court in that capacity. Therein, the question and issue essentially arose with regard to the powers of the Admiralty Court to arrest a ship (foreign vessel) flying an international flag and coming within Indian waters. Therefore and in that context the Supreme Court was called upon to decide as to ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:45:03 ::: 52 whether the English Law and Practice in Admiralty is exhaustive of the powers and authority of an Indian Court exercising identical powers or whether the Indian Court can frame such rules so as to reach the vessel of the type before the Supreme Court. While emphasising that the claim has to be a maritime claim or a maritime lien that the Surpeme Court has made the observations reproduced by us hereinabove. If there was any doubt, then, the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court in Epoch Enterrepots vs M.V. Wontu (supra) and Liverpool & London S.P. & I Association Ltd. vs M.V. Sea Success 1 and another (supra) would clarify the issue.

Shivam Enterprises vs Jsw Steel Ltd. Formerly Known As Ispat ... on 10 April, 2026

In the above-quoted paragraph in the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Epoch Enterrepots vs. M. V. Won FU (supra), a distinction has been drawn between a demise charter, a voyage charter and a time charter. It is specifically observed that in demise charter, the vessel is given to the charterer, who thereafter takes complete control of the vessel, including manning the same, while in voyage charter and time charter, the master and crew are engaged by the owner and they act under the instructions of the owner, but the directions of the charterer.
Bombay High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - M Pitale - Full Document

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

25. Observing that concept of "maritime lien" is of limited applicability and that it is not necessary that every kind of service or every kind of damage arising in connection with a seagoing vessel would give rise to a "maritime lien" and thus the right to pursue the action in rem against the vessel itself, in Epoc Enterreports case [2003 (1) SCC 305], the Supreme Court held as under:-
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Jsw Steel Ltd. Formerly Known As Ispat ... vs The Board Trustees Of The Mumbai Port ... on 10 April, 2026

In the above-quoted paragraph in the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Epoch Enterrepots vs. M. V. Won FU (supra), a distinction has been drawn between a demise charter, a voyage charter and a time charter. It is specifically observed that in demise charter, the vessel is given to the charterer, who thereafter takes complete control of the vessel, including manning the same, while in voyage charter and time charter, the master and crew are engaged by the owner and they act under the instructions of the owner, but the directions of the charterer.
Bombay High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - M Pitale - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next