2017 (9) TMI 1883 - SUPREME COURT - Indian Laws

Head Note / Extract:
Admiralty Law - arrest of vessel - maritime claim - HELD THAT:- Section 12 states that the Code of Civil Procedure is to apply in all proceedings before the High Court insofar as it is not inconsistent or contrary to the provisions of the Act. By Section 17, the Admiralty Court Acts of 1840 and 1861 and the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Acts of 1890 and 1891 stand repealed. Also, the Letters Patent of 1865, insofar as it applies to the admiralty jurisdiction of the Bombay, Calcutta and Madras High Courts, also stands repealed - An admiralty action in the courts of India commences against a vessel to enforce what is called a "maritime claim". Though India is not a signatory to the Brussels Convention of 1952, a long list of maritime claims is given in Article 1 thereof. Suffice it to say that Sub-clause (k) of Article 1 states that important materials wherever supplied to a ship for her operation or maintenance would fall within the definition of a maritime claim. A maritime lien, on the other hand, attaches to the property of the vessel whenever the cause of action arises, and travels with the vessel and subsists whenever and wherever the action may be commenced. A claim for necessaries supplied to a vessel does not become a maritime lien which attaches to the vessel. The High Court was not correct in its view that it was proved by Respondent No. 1 that sale had taken place in April, 2000 by Fairsteel Corporation to Respondent No. 1 by which Respondent No. 1 became the owner of the vessel. It is clear, therefore, that Respondent No. 1 has failed to prove that there was a change of ownership of the vessel in its favour on the date of arrest i.e. on 2.5.2000 - The suit succeeds.