ANJANI ENTERPRISES LTD Vs. M V WAN HAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs have filed this suit for various reliefs including a decree against the defendants for a sum of US $ 36,180 as per the particulars of claim shown in Exhibit A' annexed to the plaint together with further interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realisation.

(2.) According to the case of the plaintiffs, the first defendant is the foreign flag vessel and at the time of institution of the suit the said vessel was in the port of JNPT within the territorial waters of India and the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court. The second defendant is also a foreign flag vessel. It is case of the plaintiffs that the first and second defendant vessels are owned by the third defendants. It is alleged that the second defendant is a sister ship of the first defendant.

(3.) According to the case of the plaintiffs the third defendants are a company incorporated under the laws of Taiwan having their registered office as shown in the cause-title of the plaint. It is stated that a mates receipt and bills of lading were issued by the fourth defendant company on behalf of the third defendants. According to the case of the plaintiffs the fourth defendants are a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and the said defendants have acted as agents on behalf of the second and third defendants and are empowered to issue bills of lading and mate receipts on behalf of their agents i.e the third defendants. According to the plaintiffs, the fifth defendants are a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and have acted as multimodal transport operators jointly with the third and fourth defendants. It is alleged that the fifth defendants have been empowered by the third and fourth defendants to issue receipts/documents in the nature of bills of lading/multimodal transport documents in respect of cargo that may be carried and entrusted for shipment on the first and second defendant vessels. The plaintiffs have submitted in the alternative that the fifth defendants have acted as constituents on behalf of the third, fourth and sixth defendants.