M V "JETTA" Vs. KEC INTERNATIONAL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT Chamber Summons has been taken out by the defendant to reject the plaint in Admirality Suit No.1 of 2002 as being barred by law under the provisions of Order VII Rule 10 r.w. Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure; 1908.

(2.) IT is the case on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff has filed the aforesaid suit being Admirality Suit No.1 of 2002 before this Court in its Admirality and Vice -Admirality jurisdiction for a decree in a sum of US $ 65,935 together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. till payment and / or realization; for arrest and sale of the vessel and for interlocutory orders for arrest, condemnation and sale and for mandatory order and injunction for delivery of 780 MT of consignment. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 28.1.2002 ordered the arrest of the defendant No.1 vessel on certain conditions for release from arrest of defendant No.1 vessel. That in the said order certain conditions for release from arrest of the defendant No.1 vessel were stipulated, which was modified vide order dated 30.1.2002. It is submitted that the applicant original defendant moved an application for release of the defendant No.1 vessel being OJ MCA No.9 of 2002 and the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 1.2.2002 was pleased to order the release of the defendant No.1 vessel on complying with the stipulations mentioned in paragraph 1 thereto. That the applicant complied with the stipulations of paragraph 1 of the said order dated 1.2.2002 and pursuant to which, the defendant No.1 vessel was released from arrest and was allowed to sail. It is submitted that the defendant No.1 vessel filed an application being OJ MCA No. 9 of 2002 in the said suit to secure release of the vessel from arrest and by such an application the defendant No.1 did not submit to the jurisdiction of this Court. It is submitted that in light of the order dated 1.2.2002 pursuant to which the defendant No.1 vessel was released from arrest and allowed to sail without furnishing any security it is made amply clear that the defendant No.1 vessel had never submitted to the jurisdiction of this Court. It is submitted that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the plaint deserves to be rejected under the provisions of Order VII Rule 10 r.w. Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) IT is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the defendant No.1 owns company called Young More Shipping PTE Limited incorporated in Singapore and M/s. H.K.Dave Limited at Bhavnagar are the agents of the owner of the defendant No.1. That in connection with the shipment of 947 MT a liner booking note was issued to the plaintiff by defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 filed bill of lading issued by Young More Shipping PTE Limited along with application for release of the vessel. It is submitted that such bill of lading was issued to the plaintiff at Mumbai and the consignment has been shipped to Mumbai and therefore, the cause of action for filing the present suit can be said to have been arisen only at Mumbai and not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It is submitted that as per the terms and conditions contained in the bill of lading, the dispute arose under said bill of lading shall be decided in the country where the carrier has principal place of business and laws of such country shall apply except as provided elsewhere.