SCOTTS ENGINEERING BANGALORE Vs. RAJESH P SURANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by defendant No. 6 against the judgment and order dated 25.4.2001 passed by the High Court of Madras in O.S.A. Nos. 131 of 1998 and 55 of 1999.

(2.) A ship vessel M.V. Sagar owned by respondent No. 1 was swept and washed ashore and grounded offshore near Madras Fishing Harbour as a result of several cyclonic storms. All efforts of respondent No. 2 herein to refloat the vessel failed, it was abandoned and became a wreck. Since the crew and Master of the vessel were not paid their wages, they filed an admiralty suit in the Madras High Court being C.S. No. 57 of 1995. The Court ordered the arrest of the vessel. Respondent No. 2 through their agent respondent Nos. 3 and 6 entered into a negotiation with the appellant for sale of the ship and finally entered into a Memorandum of Agreement counter-signed by defendant No. 5 who was the owner s representative under which the appellant was required to pay a sum of Rs. 75 lacs forthwith and balance consideration amount of Rs. 1.50 crores was to be paid by 28.4.1995. On 18.4.1995 the appellant paid a sum of Rs. 75 lacs and, therefore, he filed an application No. 2136 of 1995 arising out of C.S. No. 57 of 1995 seeking leave to intervene in the matter as he had already purchased the vessel and also made the payment. The prayer was allowed. After the crew and Master of the said vessel were paid their wages, the suit was dismissed on satisfaction and the order of arrest was vacated. However, before the appellant could perform his part of the contract and pay the balance consideration amount of Rs. 1.50 crores in terms of Memorandum of Agreement dated 17.4.1995 it appears another suit was instituted in the High Court being O.A. No. 491 of 1995. The High Court has restrained the owner and its agent from alienating or encumbering the said vessel in any manner to a third party. Therefore, the appellant was unable to perform his part of contract and could not pay the remaining consideration amount of Rs. 1.50 crores to the owner.

(3.) In the interregnum, many orders were passed and it has come to this Court several times, with which we are not really concerned.