FORDIE METALS LIMITED Vs. M V TIBOR SZAMUELY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Narichania, the learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Rambhadran, the learned counsel for defendants.

(2.) BY this chamber summons taken out by Banque National De Paris (Suisse) S. A. seeking leave of the Court, it is prayed that the applicants be permitted to be impleaded to the present suit in place and stead of plaintiffs and they be permitted to amend the plaint as per the Schedule annexed to the chamber summons and also to carry out the consequential amendments therein as may be required. The applicants have also prayed that the suit be deemed to have been instituted as on 21-3-1995 viz. on the date of institution of the present suit.

(3.) IN the affidavit in support of this chamber summons it is stated that though the plaintiffs filed the present suit against the defendants for recovery of a sum of U. S. Dollars 145,349. 68 along with interest thereon, for arrest and sale of the 1st defendant vessel or any other ship/ships or vessels belonging to or in the beneficial ownership of the owners of the 1st defendant vessel or of the 3rd defendant together with all its paraphernalia and for sale of the same under the directions, orders and supervision of the Court and for application of the sale proceeds thereof to the satisfaction of the plaintiffs claim, the entire claim was instituted for the benefit of the applicants. It is also stated in the affidavit in support of chamber summons that the suit was filed by the present plaintiffs in its name not with a dishonest motive or intention but it was believed by both the plaintiffs and the applicants that there was/is no bar to plaintiffs filing the suit notwithstanding the assignment. Upon the plaintiffs-Company going into liquidation and the liquidator having been appointed, immediately thereafter on 17-1-1996 liquidator Mr. P. Bernard Harrington intimated the applicants that the amounts due to the company in respect of the matter in question cannot be assigned to the Bank and that the Bank shall be entitled to realisation which may ultimately be forthcoming. It is thus stated in the affidavit in support of the chamber summons that filing of the suit by the plaintiffs in its name was a bona fide error/mistake and that now the applicants be substituted in place of present plaintiffs and allowed to continue the suit henceforth.