Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)Section 19 in The Sale Of Goods Act, 1930 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Admiralty (Jurisdiction And Settlement Of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 [Entire Act]
M.V. Elisabeth And Ors vs Harwan Investment And Trading Pvt. ... on 26 February, 1992
17. Mr. Kamat has submitted that the subject vessel was
custodia legis from 4th January, 2024 until 1st February, 2024 when
remaining part of the sale consideration was paid. He has placed
reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in MV Elisabeth &
10/16
::: Uploaded on - 28/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2024 02:26:37 :::
12-ial-6146-2024.doc
Ors. Vs. Harwan Investment and Trading Private Ltd. 7. The Supreme
Court has held that upon arrest of the vessel it is brought under the
custody of the Marshal (now Sheriff) and any interference with his
custody is treated as contempt of the Court which has ordered the
arrest.
Chrisomar Corporation vs Mjr Steels Private Limited on 14 September, 2017
20. Mr Kamat has submitted that in view of these
inconsistencies in the documents and suspicion nature of the sale of
the subject vessel, the same is required to be relegated to a trial and
hence no relief can be granted in the present Interim Application. He
has placed reliance upon the decision of the Gujarat High Court in
Marlin Maritime Trading Ltd. V. Interocean Ship Repairs LLC 8 and
Chrisomat Corporation Vs. MJR Steels Private Limited and Anr .9 It
8 Civil Application (OJ) No.1 of 2018 in R/ Admiralty Suit No.22 of 2018 decided on
15th October, 2018, Paras 56-60, 71-74).
Proactive Ship Management Pvt. Ltd vs Green Ocean-1 And Ors on 13 April, 2021
12-ial-6146-2024.doc
High Court in Proactive Ship Management Private Ltd. Vs. Green
Ocean3. The Calcutta High Court has held that "the prima facie view
as to ownership is further strengthened by the provision of Section
three of the Commercial Documents Evidence Act, 1939. These
documents mentioned in Part I of the schedule to the 1939 Act
referred to by GOSPL in support of its ownership convinces this Court
as to its ownership as on the date of arrest".
Rainbow Ace Shipping S. A vs Lufeng Shipping Co. Ltd on 9 December, 2019
8. Mr. Khatri has further placed reliance upon decision of
this Court in MV Rainbow Ace Vs. Lufeng Shipping Company
Limited4. This is in support of his contention that a prima facie case
cannot be merely based on suspicion. The arrest of the vessel on the
basis of suspicion raised certainly causes more injury to a third party
than the Plaintiff. Just the balance of convenience would be against
the arrest of the vessel.
Monjasa Ltd vs M.T. Alpine Duke (Imo 9470909) on 7 January, 2019
Further, the Gujarat High Court in Monjasa Ltd.
(Supra) noted that the Plaintiff in that case relied upon the Sea Web
Report to file its maritime claim and apart from that there was
nothing to rebut the prima facie evidence produced on behalf of the
Applicant - Owner of the Defendant vessel, which has prima facie
demonstrated that Oxygen Maritime Management Inc. has nothing to
do with the ownership of the Defendant vessel.
Marlin Maritime Trading Ltd ( Imo ... vs Interocean Ship Repairs Llc on 30 October, 2018
20. Mr Kamat has submitted that in view of these
inconsistencies in the documents and suspicion nature of the sale of
the subject vessel, the same is required to be relegated to a trial and
hence no relief can be granted in the present Interim Application. He
has placed reliance upon the decision of the Gujarat High Court in
Marlin Maritime Trading Ltd. V. Interocean Ship Repairs LLC 8 and
Chrisomat Corporation Vs. MJR Steels Private Limited and Anr .9 It
8 Civil Application (OJ) No.1 of 2018 in R/ Admiralty Suit No.22 of 2018 decided on
15th October, 2018, Paras 56-60, 71-74).
1