Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.30 seconds)Article 3 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 3 in Admiralty Court Act, 1861 [Entire Act]
Admiralty Court Act, 1861
Bomi Munchershaw Mistry vs Kesharwani Co-Operative Housing ... on 3 December, 1992
5. It would also not be possible to accept the
submission of Mr.Mukherjee to the effect that
even prima facie it could not be held that the
necessaries were supplied on express/ implied
authority of the vessel. The circumstances in
which the plaint can be struck out as disclosing
no cause of action has been considered by a
Division Bench of this Court in the case of (Bomi
Munchershaw Mistry v. Kesharwani CoOp.Housing
Society Ltd. and others) 3, 1988 (3) Bom.
M.V. Sea Renown And Anr. vs Energy Net Ltd. on 15 July, 2003
In conclusion, it is held that the present
case is clearly covered by the Sea Renown
case (Supra) and Monchegorsk case (Supra).
If the arrest is vacated a decree passed at
the final hearing will be rendered
infructuous since the vessel may never return
to India. The shipowner is also not from a
44A Reciprocating Country. Thus gave harm and
prejudice would be caused if the arrest is
OJCA/36420/2006 79/79 JUDGMENT
vacated. Hence application is rejected
without any order as to costs.
Epoch Enterrepots vs M.V. Won Fu on 29 October, 2002
(iii) In all cases where there is no
maritime lien (admittedly there is no
maritime lien in the case of a claim for
supply of bunkers to a vessel), a right in
personam exists for any claim that may arise
out of a contract. If the contract is with
the owner of the vessel then a right in rem
is available against the vessel. Otherwise
OJCA/36420/2006 16/79 JUDGMENT
only a right in personam exists against the
contracting party. (See (2003) 1 SCC 305
Epoch Enterrepots Vs. M.V. WON FU).
1