Can an order adding a party under order 1, rule 10(2) of the CCP be appealed under section 14 of the Admiralty Act? Supreme Court Responses

0

Should the High Court Commercial Appeal Division (Bench Division) have allowed the appeal and set aside the Commercial Division (Single Bench) order adding Gulf Petroleum FZC as a defendant in the suit?

The bench observed that the division bench correctly noted that when a carrier notifies the party indicated as the “notified party”, it implies that a notice of arrival of the ship or a notice of preparation to discharge the cargo must be given to that party, after which that party would produce the bill of lading and obtain the discharge of the cargo.

The Supreme Court said that it is clear from a reading of the Admiralty Act and the Commercial Courts Act that orders made under the Admiralty Act relating to the exercise of jurisdiction in rem by the High Court are the only orders subject to appeal under section 14 of the Admiralty Act, whereas orders made in a trial and on applications made under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are not orders under the Admiralty Act, but orders under the CPC which could only be appealed if they fall under CPC Order 43 as provided for in Article 13 of the Commercial Courts Act.

The bench considered that “An order to add a party under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the CPC is not subject to appeal under section 14 of the Admiralty Act. Gulf Petrochem is a party to the litigation and the court settlement and the contract of carriage (bill of lading) and is therefore a necessary party. Gulf Petrochem is also an appropriate party whose presence is necessary for a full and final determination of the matters in dispute.

The Supreme Court held that it was not possible to appeal to the Commercial Appeal Division of the High Court against an order of the Commercial (Single Bench) Division of the same High Court for the addition of a party in an admiralty suit governed by the Admiralty Act.

In light of the foregoing, the panel allowed the appeal.

Case title: Owners and interested parties of the vessel MV Polaris Galaxy c. Cantonal Bank of Geneva

Bench: Judges Indira Banerjee and AS Bopanna

Case no: CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6897-6898 FROM 2022

Get instant legal updates on mobile – Download the Law Trend app now

The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that an order to add a party under CCP Order 1, Rule 10(2) is not appealable under Section 14 of the Act. on the Admiralty.

The bench of Judges Indira Banerjee and AS Bopanna dealt with the appeal challenging the judgment and order made by the Madras HC allowing the commercial appeal filed by the defendant and setting aside an order made by the Commercial Division of the High Court.

In the present case, the appellant, M/s Galaxy Marine Services Limited, is the registered owner of the vessel, the MV Polaris Galaxy, an ocean-going oil tanker flying the flag of Liberia, hereinafter referred to as “the vessel”. .

Gulf Petroleum FZC entered into a contract to purchase 27-28,000 metric tons (MT) of marine fuel from Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOC) which was to be loaded at Kandla port, to be unloaded at Fujairah.

Gulf Petroleum FZC asked Defendant Banque Cantonale de Genève (Defendant Bank) to finance the purchase of said 27 to 28,000 MT of marine fuel oil from IOC.

It was alleged that Gulf Petroleum FZC fabricated several contracts for the supply of petroleum products to Gulf Petrol Supplies LLC and issued fraudulent/false invoices.

The Commercial Division of the Madras High Court issued an ex parte order for the arrest of the vessel.

Subsequently, the defendant bank brought a motion for summary judgment under Ordinance XIV, Rule 8 and Ordinance XIIIA of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as amended by the Courts of Justice Act 2015. trade.

The Commercial Division of the High Court issued an order quashing the order to arrest the vessel and allowing the vessel to sail.

The question to be considered before the bench was as follows:

Join LAW TREND WhatsAPP group for legal news updates – Click to subscribe

Should the High Court Commercial Appeal Division (Bench Division) have allowed the appeal and set aside the Commercial Division (Single Bench) order adding Gulf Petroleum FZC as a defendant in the suit?

The bench observed that the division bench correctly noted that when a carrier notifies the party indicated as the “notified party”, it implies that a notice of arrival of the ship or a notice of preparation to discharge the cargo must be given to that party, after which that party would produce the bill of lading and obtain the discharge of the cargo.

The Supreme Court said that it is clear from a reading of the Admiralty Act and the Commercial Courts Act that orders made under the Admiralty Act relating to the exercise of jurisdiction in rem by the High Court are the only orders subject to appeal under section 14 of the Admiralty Act, whereas orders made in a trial and on applications made under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are not orders under the Admiralty Act, but orders under the CPC which could only be appealed if they fall under CPC Order 43 as provided for in Article 13 of the Commercial Courts Act.

The bench considered that “An order to add a party under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the CPC is not subject to appeal under section 14 of the Admiralty Act. Gulf Petrochem is a party to the litigation and the court settlement and the contract of carriage (bill of lading) and is therefore a necessary party. Gulf Petrochem is also an appropriate party whose presence is necessary for a full and final determination of the matters in dispute.

The Supreme Court held that it was not possible to appeal to the Commercial Appeal Division of the High Court against an order of the Commercial (Single Bench) Division of the same High Court for the addition of a party in an admiralty suit governed by the Admiralty Act.

In light of the foregoing, the panel allowed the appeal.

Case title: Owners and interested parties of the vessel MV Polaris Galaxy c. Cantonal Bank of Geneva

Bench: Judges Indira Banerjee and AS Bopanna

Case no: CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6897-6898 FROM 2022

Get instant legal updates on mobile – Download the Law Trend app now

Share.

About Author

Comments are closed.