LAWS(BOM)-1998-8-63

OCEAN MARINE MUTUAL INSURANCE ASSOCIATION LIMITED Vs. M V WONFU AND SHIVAM ENGINEERING CO BHAVNAGAR PRIVATE LIMITED

Decided On August 24, 1998
OCEAN MARINE MUTUAL INSURANCE ASSOCIATION LIMITED Appellant
V/S
M.V.WONFU AND SHIVAM ENGINEERING CO,(BHAVNAGAR) PRIVATE LIMITED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the plaintiff and the learned Counsel for the respondents. This Chamber Summons has been taken out by the plaintiffs to implead the respondents as party defendants to this suit. By this Chamber Summons the plaintiffs are seeking a direction that the respondents be ordered and directed to furnish in favour of the Prothonotary and Sr. Master, High Court, Bombay, a security in the sum of 142, 294. 90 U. S. $, towards the satisfaction of the plaintiffs claim.

(2.) THIS suit has been filed by the plaintiffs, an Insurance Company which had insured the defendant-vessel viz. m. v. WONFU. It appears that the defendant-vessel was covered by an insurance with the plaintiffs-company to avail of the cover of protection, indemnity, freight, demurrage etc. In this behalf the plaintiffs have raised debit notes against the defendants in the sum of 142, 294. 90 U. S. $. The plaintiffs have also sent a demand notice to the defendants. Finally, when the plaintiffs came to know that the said vessel was lying at port Alang, they had approached this Court and obtained a warrant of arrest on 3rd April, 1998.

(3.) PERUSED the Bailiffs Report dated 4th May, 1998, wherein the Bailiff who had proceeded to the said defendant-vessel which was lying at Plot No. 140, Alang Ship Breaking Yard, Alang (Bhavnagar ). The Bailiff has categorically stated in the said report that he found most of the vessel was demolished. He has also stated that he had contacted the respondent who was the purchaser of the said vessel and had informed him about the warrant of arrest against the said vessel m. v. WONFU. The Bailiff has stated that he had fixed warrant of arrest on the remaining portion of the said vessel as the substantial part of the vessel was already demolished. The Bailiff has further stated that he had served the duplicate copy of the warrant of arrest upon the respondent who had purchased the said vessel and obtained an acknowledgement.