Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.68 seconds)
Peninsula Petroleum Ltd vs Bunkers On Board The Vessel M V Geowave ... on 17 December, 2014 cites

Kamalakar Mahadev Bhagat vs Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. on 5 August, 1960

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. v. S. S. 'Edison Mariner' (1962) 66 Cal WN 1083; National Co. Ltd. v. Asia Mariner, (1968) 72 Cal WN 635; Mrs. Sahida Ismail v. Petko R. Salvejkoy, 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.
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Sahida Ismail vs Petko R. Salvejkov And Ors. on 20 July, 1971

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. v. S. S. 'Edison Mariner' (1962) 66 Cal WN 1083; National Co. Ltd. v. Asia Mariner, (1968) 72 Cal WN 635; Mrs. Sahida Ismail v. Petko R. Salvejkoy, 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.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Smt. Reena Padhi And Ors. vs Owners And Parties, Interested, In The ... on 21 October, 1981

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. v. S. S. 'Edison Mariner' (1962) 66 Cal WN 1083; National Co. Ltd. v. Asia Mariner, (1968) 72 Cal WN 635; Mrs. Sahida Ismail v. Petko R. Salvejkoy, 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.
Orissa High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

M.V. Mariner Iv, A Foreign Flag Vessel ... vs Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. on 15 December, 1997

The judgment in The African Eagle considers various statues, letters patent, High Court Rules, various judgments of the Apex Court (m.v. Elisabeth and m.v. Sea Success) as well as of this Hon'ble Court (11The Mariner IV vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited) and English law. The Court held the freight independently of vessel cannot be arrested. The arrest of bunker issue was left open as the Defendants had agreed to secure the claim upto the value of the bunker then available on board on without prejudice basis. The suit later was dismissed on other grounds. This judgment it was submitted on behalf of Defendant No.2 that there is no in rem jurisdiction to arrest bunkers. Although the judgment decided only the issue of arrest of freight, in my view it applies in equal measure to arrest of bunkers. Bunkers cannot be arrested independently of or with the ship as separate maritime property.
Bombay High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 7 - R P Desai - Full Document
1