Page 1

1

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL/APPELLATE JURISDICTION

TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL)  NO.  1880 OF 2014

BANK OF SHARJAH                          … Petitioner

                               VERSUS

JOPLIN OVERSEAS INVESTMENT PVT LTD  AND ANR. … Respondents

WITH

TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) D. NO. 2295 OF 2015

SLP(C) NO. 991 OF 2015

SLP(C) No. 36706 OF 2014

J U D G M E N T Chelameswar, J.

Permission to file T.P.(C) D. No. 2295/2015 is granted.

2. M.V. Meem, a vessel (hereinafter referred to as 'vessel') plying  

the flag of Panama is into lot of litigation in this country.   

3. Three  Admiralty  Suits  bearing  Nos.  93,  94  and  1086/2013  

came to be filed in the Bombay High Court and one Suit bearing  

No.18/2013 was filed in the Gujarat High Court by different plaintiffs

Page 2

2

on 14.8.2013, 7.8.2013, 5.12.2013 and 28.8.2013 respectively.  In  

the  Suits  bearing  Nos.93,  94  and  18/13,  orders  of  arrest  of  the  

vessel were passed.

4. Respondent  No.1,  Joplin  Overseas  Investments  Pvt.  Ltd.,  

hereinafter  referred  to  as  ‘Joplin’  for  the sake of  convenience,  a  

Company registered under the Laws of British Virgin Islands having  

its office at British Virgin Islands filed two applications in Admiralty  

Suit No. 94 of 2013, one seeking to intervene in the suit, and the  

second seeking the vacation of the order of arrest granted earlier.  

The  said  applications  were  supported  by  two  affidavits  dated  

19.8.2013.  The said applications were filed by Joplin with assertions  

that it is “the lawful owner of the M.V. MEEM” and that the applicant  

“vide Memorandum of Agreement dated 27.2.2013 purchased M.V.  

MEEM from her then owners- Marakeb S.A., Panama of Panama”.

5. It appears that the claims of the plaintiffs in the three Suits  

Nos. 93, 94 and 1086 of 2013 filed before the Bombay High Court  

came to be settled and, therefore, an application was filed for the  

release of the vessel on 25.2.2014. Joplin represented before the  

Bombay High Court that it would be filing a separate suit seeking  

arrest of the vessel and sought time till 3.3.2014 for filing such a  

suit and prayed the High Court not to release the vessel from arrest

Page 3

3

till  then.  The Bombay High Court allowed the withdrawal of the  

Admiralty Suits pending before it and continued the arrest of the  

vessel till 3.3.2014 in terms of the prayer of Joplin.   

6. Subsequently, the applications of Joplin came to be dismissed  

by  an  order  of  the  Bombay  High  Court  dated  20.12.2013.   The  

relevant portion of the order reads as follows:-

“The  learned  Advocate  appearing  for  the  Intervenor-Joplin  Overseas  Investment  Ltd.,  informs  the  Court  that  he  does  not  want  to  represent  the  Intervenor-Joplin Overseas Investment  Ltd.,  in the matter and seeks discharge.  He has also informed the Court that though he has conveyed the order of this  Court  to  the  Deponent  of  the  Affidavit  Shri  Sharma requiring  him to  remain  present in Court, he has informed the Court that he cannot attend the Court due to  his prior commitments.

After  hearing  the  learned  senior  Advocate  for  the  Caveator  and  the  plaintiff  in  Admirality  Suit(L)  No.  1086  of  2013,  I  am  satisfied  that  the  applicant  has  filed  the  present  application  on  the  basis  of  fabricated  documents  and  has  approached  the  Court  with  unclean  hands.  In  view  thereof, Mr. Ashwin Shankar, Advocate is allowed to take discharge in the matter.  The Chamber Summons (L) No. 935 of 2013 and the Notice of Motion(L) No.  1642 of 2013 stand dismissed.”

[emphasis supplied]

An appeal  no.  411  of  2014  was  filed  by  Joplin  praying  that  the  

observations made in the order dated 20.12.2013 be expunged.

7. Another Admiralty Suit No. 9 of 2014 came to be filed by Joplin  

on 3.3.2014 before the Gujarat High Court. However, no order of  

arrest of the vessel is passed till date in the said suit.

8. On 11.4.2014, another Admiralty Suit No. 13 of 2014 came to

Page 4

4

be filed  before  the  Gujarat  High  Court  for  recovery  of  a  certain  

amount by one Compass Shipping Agency. On 5.8.2014, the Bank of  

Sharjah filed Admiralty Suit No. 747 of 2014 in the Bombay High  

Court claiming to be mortgagee of the vessel in question.  In the  

said suit, the Bank of Sharjah filed an application for the sale of the  

vessel.   The  said  application  was  allowed  by  High  Court  on  

9.9.2014.  By an order dated 7.10.2014, High Court fixed the sale of  

the vessel by auction to take place on 30.10.2014.

9. On  28.10.2014,  Compass  Shipping  Agency,  plaintiff  in  

Admiralty Suit No. 13 of 2014 on the file of High Court of Gujarat  

filed an Application (Notice of Motion(L) No. 2433 of 2014) before  

the Bombay High Court seeking stay of the sale of vessel on the  

ground that its Suit (Admiralty Suit No. 13 of 2014) was prior in time  

to  the  Admiralty  suit  No.  747  of  2014.   In  view  of  the  said  

application, the sale of the vessel was deferred.

10. Bank  of  Sharjah  (plaintiff  in  Suit  No.  747  of  2014)  filed  an  

application  No.622/14  in  the  suit  of  Compass  Shipping  Agency  

(Admiralty  Suit  No.  13  of  2014)  seeking  to  intervene  therein  to  

settle the claim of Compass Shipping Agency to secure the release  

of the vessel1.   1   2.  Bank of Sharjah which has mortgaged over Defendant Vessel has shown willingness to put security of the Suit   Claim and also deposited Demand Draft of Rs.52,10,000/- with the Registry.

   3.  Marakeb, SA, Panama, Owner of Opponent No. 2 Vessel has no objection if the Security tendered by the  Bank of Sharjah as mortgagee is accepted and paid over to the Opponent No.1/Original  Plaintiff in full  and final  

Page 5

5

11. Number  of  other  applications  came  to  be  filed  by  various  

parties in the above-mentioned suits, the details of which may not  

be necessary for the purpose of present litigation.

12. It  is,  in  the  background  of  the  above-mentioned  litigation,  

these four matters came to be filed in this Court.  

(i) Transfer  Petition(Civil)  No.  1880 of  2014 is  filed by the  

Bank of Sharjah seeking the transfer of Admiralty Suit No. 9 of 2014  

on the file of the Gujarat High Court to the Bombay High Court.

(ii) Transfer Petition(C) D No. 2295 of 2015 is filed by Joplin  

seeking transfer of Admiralty Suit No. 747 of 2014 from Bombay  

High Court to Gujarat High Court.

(iii) Two SLP(C) Nos. 36706 of 2014 and 991 of 2015 are filed  by the owner of the vessel.

13. The  two  special  leave  petitions  mentioned  above  are  filed  

aggrieved by a common order dated 12.12.2014 of the Gujarat High  

Court passed in Original Jurisdiction Appeals No.73, 74 and 75 of  

2014.  Those appeals arose out of the Admiralty Suit Nos. 13 of  

2014 and 18 of 2013. Two applications were filed by the defendants  

in the said suits praying that, the said suits be disposed of in terms  

settlement of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Vessel and her owner Vessel/her.    4.   Hence appropriate orders for release of Opponent No.2 Vessel forthwith and disposal of the Suit are   

required to be passed.

Page 6

6

of  a  settlement  arrived  at  between  the  parties  pursuant  to  the  

settlement of the claims of the respective plaintiffs of the said suit.  

By an order dated 9.12.2014, a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat  

High Court declined the prayer on the ground that Admiralty Suit  

Nos. 13 of 2014 and 18 of 2013 are inter-linked with Admiralty Suit  

No. 9 of 2014 (Joplin's suit) and in view of the pendency of Transfer  

Petition(C)  No.  1880 of  2014 and an  interim order  of  this  Court  

dated 8.12.2014 staying all  further  proceedings in  the Admiralty  

Suit No. 9 of 2014, the other two Admiralty Suit Nos. 13 of 2014 and  

18 of 2013 could not be disposed of.  The operative portion of the  

two orders is as follows:-

“All  the  three  suits  including the  present  suit  are  interlinked and  interconnected with Admirality Suit No. 09 of 2014.

In view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the  Transfer Petition as above and the matters being interconnected, and when  the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized with the case, propriety requires that in  the facts and circumstances of the case, no orders are passed.”

“The  present  Admirality  Suit  No.  18  of  2013  is  interlinked  and  interconnected with Admirality Suit No. 09 of 2014 and both are ordered to  be heard together.   The claim of the respective plaintiffs  are against  the  same vessel-M.V. Meem.  As noted above, suit along with other connected  matters  being  listed  together,  order  dated  03rd March,  2014  mentioned  above passed in Admirality Suit No. 09 of 2014 had a reference to order  passed in the present suit.

In view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the  transfer petition as above and the matters being interconnected, and when  the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized with the case, propriety requires that in  the facts and circumstances of the case, no further orders are passed.”

Page 7

7

14. Aggrieved by the said orders, appeals were preferred by the  

Bank of Sharjah which came to be disposed of by an order dated  

12.12.2014 without  granting any relief  to  the appellants  therein.  

The operative portion of the order reads as follows:-

“Under the circumstances, no case is made out for interference to the  impugned  order  passed  by  the  learned  Single  Judge.   However,  it  is  observed that  the  present  order  shall  not  prevent  any party to move for  clarification in Transfer  Petition (Civil)  No.  38523/14,  which is  pending  before the Apex Court.”

15. Hence the two special leave petitions.

16. IA No. 3 of 2015 is filed by the Bank of Sharjah with the prayer  

as follows:-

“The Applicant/petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble  Court may be pleased to:

(a) pass an appropriate order directing the sale of the Respondent No.  2  vessel  i.e.  M.V.  Meem  by  auction/other  means  on  such  terms  and  conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit; and

(b) pass such other and/or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may  deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

17. It is averred in the IA that the said IA is necessitated in view of  

the developments that took place during the pendency of the four  

matters before this Court.  The development being that the vessel  

collided with another vessel, namely Oriental Explorer on 2.2.2015  

at around 2.00 p.m. resulting in extensive damage being caused to  

the  hulls  and navigation equipments,  engine and generator,  etc.  

and the members of the crew of the vessel  have evacuated the

Page 8

8

vessel.

18. It  is  argued  by  Mr.  Arvind  Datar  and  Mr.  C.A.  Sundaram,  

learned senior counsel appearing for the Bank of Sharjah and for  

the vessel respectively that it is common prayer in all the pending  

suits in the two High Courts mentioned above that the vessel be  

sold and the claim of each of the plaintiffs be settled.   Therefore, in  

view of the precarious condition of the vessel, none of the plaintiffs  

including Joplin can object to the sale of the vessel.  Secondly, the  

learned senior counsel submitted that in view of the fact that an  

order of sale of the vessel is already passed by the Bombay High  

Court and having regard to the fact that the Bombay High Court has  

better  infrastructure  for  conducting  the  sale  in  view of  the  long  

history of the admiralty jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court, it is  

in the fitness of things and in the interest of all the parties that the  

sale of the vessel be conducted by the Bombay High Court pursuant  

to its Order dated 9.9.2014.

19. On  the  other  hand,  Mr.  Kapil  Sibal,  learned  senior  counsel  

appearing for Joplin submitted that the suit of the petitioner is much  

later than the suit of Joplin and the claim of the petitioner bank as  

the  mortgagee  of  the  ship  is  registered  with  the  authorities  of  

Panama only subsequent to  the filing of the suit  of  Joplin  in the

Page 9

9

Gujarat High Court, and therefore, the sale of the vessel cannot be  

ordered  without  adjudicating  the  respective  claims  of  all  the  

concerned parties.

20. We  do  not  propose  to  go  into  the  merits  of  the  respective  

claims  of  various  parties  nor  the  hierarchical  superiority  of  the  

claims  of  these  various  parties  as  the  admiralty  suits  are  still  

pending.

21. In the background of the above-mentioned litigation, one thing  

is clear that all the suits must be heard together by one High Court.  

The question is - which High Court is required to hear the matter.  

Though in the normal course, the Gujarat High Court should have  

been the appropriate High Court to hear all the suits in view of the  

fact that the vessel  has always been positioned in  the territorial  

waters of India abutting the State of Gujarat and within the area of  

a Port over which the Gujarat High Court has territorial jurisdiction.  

But there were various orders of arrest passed by the Bombay High  

Court prior to the filing of Admiralty Suit No.9 of 2014 by Joplin in  

the Gujarat High Court and in view of the fact that Joplin filed a  

caveat before the Bombay High Court and took advantage of the  

orders of arrest passed by the Bombay High Court without raising  

any objection to the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court, and in

Page 10

10

view of the fact that the conduct of Joplin before the Bombay High  

Court is found to be less than wholesome, we deem it appropriate  

to transfer all the Admiralty Suits pending in the Gujarat High Court  

with regard to the vessel in question to the Bombay High Court.

22. We also deem it appropriate to request the Bombay High Court  

to dispose of the suits within four weeks from the date of the receipt  

of  the  records  from the  Gujarat  High  Court.    We  also  deem it  

appropriate  to  direct  the  Registry  of  the  Gujarat  High  Court  to  

transfer the records of the above-mentioned Admiralty Suits within  

10 days from the receipt of this order.

23. The only other question which is required to be examined by  

us is whether the sale of the vessel is required to proceed during  

the pendency of the suits. The learned senior counsel appearing for  

Joplin argued that effecting the sale even prior to the adjudication  

of  the  respective  rights  of  petitioner  bank  and  Joplin  would  

adversely affect the rights of Joplin.     

24. Even  according  to  the  pleadings  and  material  available  on  

record,  Joplin  appears  to  be  only  a  holder  of  the  agreement  for  

purchase of the vessel in question, though admittedly Joplin paid  

part of the consideration of sale.  But there is a dispute as to the

Page 11

11

exact amount paid by Joplin towards the sale consideration of the  

vessel.     

25. We do not propose to examine the hierarchy of the claims of  

the petitioner and Joplin as the same is required to be done by the  

High Court in the Admiralty Suits pending.   But, having regard to  

the  precarious  condition  of  the  vessel,  though  such  assertion  is  

being  disputed  by  Joplin,  the  assertion  of  the  petitioner  bank  

appears to be having some basis  in view of the contents of  the  

letter dated 2.2.20152 of the Gujarat Maritime Board, we deem it  

appropriate to direct the sale of the vessel  by the Bombay High  

Court pursuant to the order dated 9.9.2014.   The proceeds of such  

sale  shall  be  held  by  the  Bombay High  Court  and the  same be  

disbursed in accordance with law after the adjudication of all the  

suits pursuant to this order.

26. In view of the above, both the transfer petitions and the two  

special leave petitions stand disposed of.

…..………………………….J.                                                  (J. Chelameswar)

2 “The subject vessel is currently lying at Lat 21 43 N Lon 072 20.6 E position which is just 1 cable away from shallow  patch.   You are instructed to immediately shift the vessel to avoid any untoward incidents/grounding of vessel.  Also   clarify the action taken by master of MY MEEM when MV ORIENTAL Explorer came in contact with her on 02/02/15  at around 0206 Hrs.”

Page 12

12

…………………………..….J.                                                    (R.K. Agrawal)

New Delhi; February 25, 2015