Petromarine Products Ltd. Vs Ocean Marine Services Co. Ltd. & Anr

Page 1

‘ REPORTABLE’

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6156 OF 2005

Petromarine Products Ltd. …Appellant (s)

versus

Ocean Marine Services Company Ltd. and others … Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

M.Y. Eqbal, J.:

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order

dated 27.11.2003 passed by a Division Bench of the High

Court of Madras in OSA No.175 of 1998, dismissing the

appeal of the appellant, upholding inter alia the

disbursements made by Single Judge of the sale proceeds

received by sale of the ship in question named as motor

vessel ‘Eleni’.

1

Page 2

2. The factual matrix of the case is that in February, 1997

Respondent No.1 filed a suit being C.S.No.97 of 1997 under

the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Court of Madras, for

recovery of US$ 22,705.84 against Respondent No.3 herein

along with an application praying for an order of arrest of the

vessel which arrived at Port of Madras. The High Court in

terms of Order dated 27.2.1997 issued arrest warrant.

Whereas in the Bombay High Court, Appellant filed an

admiralty suit A.S.No.27 of 1997 in March, 1997 for recovery

of amount of US$ 39,712.97 i.e. the security of Appellant’s

suit claim. On 19.03.1997, Bombay High Court directed the

order of arrest of Vessel M.V. Eleni.

3. Meanwhile, High Court of Madras appointed Respondent

No. 2 as the Advocate Commissioner. On 25.04.1997, terms

and conditions for sale were approved by the Madras High

Court. Publications with respect to the sale of the said vessel

were made in various newspapers. Unaware of such

proceedings, Bombay High Court, on 11.09.1997, passed an

2

Page 3

ex-parte decree in the suit filed by the appellant for a sum of

US$ 50,081.74 with interest, which was communicated to

the Advocate Commissioner (Respondent No.2), appointed

by the Madras High Court, with a request to take note of

their claim against the Vessel. The Sheriff of Mumbai also

communicated to Respondent No.2 on 21.10.1997 that the

Vessel MV ELENI was arrested in due compliance of Warrant

of Arrest dated 18.03.1997 and 21.03.1997 passed by the

High Court of Bombay and requested them to take note of

the arrest order passed by Bombay High Court. Before the

aforesaid decree transmitted by the Bombay High Court was

received by the Madras High Court on 24.1.1998, learned

Single Judge of the Madras High Court confirmed the sale in

favour of M/s. Jansee Steel Industry Pvt. Ltd. on 24.10.1997.

In the execution petition moved by the appellant in

February, 1998, Bombay High Court issued notice under

Order 21 Rule 52 of the C.P.C., requesting the Madras High

Court to hold the decretal sum in an aggregate amount of

3

Page 4

US$ 58,325.64 from and out of the funds deposited by M/s.

Jansee Steel Industries.

4. It is worth to note here that the tender of M/s. Jansee

Steel Industries had been challenged by another company

M/s. Bancorex by way of another suit being O.S.A.No.15 of

1998, which ultimately was allowed on 23.4.1998 by Madras

High Court by setting aside the confirmation of sale made in

favour of M/s. Jansee and the matter was remanded to the

Single Judge to ensure that the best possible price is

secured. Consequently, learned Single Judge accepted the

only bid of M/s. Jansee Steel Industry Pvt. Ltd. for a sum of

US$ 4,70,000 and they were directed to pay the balance

consideration within three weeks, failing which the earnest

money deposited by them would stand forfeited. Advocate

commissioner was also directed to deposit the entire amount

to the credit of the suit. Madras High Court confirmed the

sale made in favour of M/s. Jansee Steel Industry Pvt. Ltd. on

05.10.1998 and ordered reimbursement of cost of sale,

4

Page 5

payment to the crew members and charges to the statutory

authorities.

5. On 25.09.1998, Bombay High Court informed the

passing of ex-parte decree in favour of appellant and asked

Registrar of the Madras High Court to remit the funds lying

attached pursuant to Order 21 Rule 52 Notice. On 7th

October 1998, Bombay High Court made a further order in

favour of the appellant who filed execution petition in the

Bombay High Court. The Registry of Bombay High Court

sent letters dated 28.01.1999, 09.03.1999 and 11.03.1999,

requesting the Registrar of the Madras High Court to give

reply for non-remittance of the attached funds. Finally, on

03.09.1999, Bombay High Court gave liberty to the

appellant, to obtain suitable orders from the Madras High

Court and closed the Execution Application.

6. Meanwhile after the confirmation of the sale, the sale

proceeds were disbursed to the crew members of statutory

5

Page 6

authorities and a direction was issued on 6.10.1998 to the

commissioner to deposit the balance amount of Rs.

12,38,164/-.

7. Thereafter, appellant challenged the order dated

06.10.1998 passed by single Judge in Application No.1217 of

1997 in C.S.No.97 of 1997, pleading before the Division

Bench of the Madras High Court that on the service of notice

issued by the Bombay High Court under Order 21 Rule 52

CPC, the appellant was entitled to the decretal amount alone

and the amount attached ought not to have been disbursed

to third parties and the custody court namely the Madras

High Court has no authority to make rateable distribution.

Per contra, it was submitted on behalf of the respondents

before the Madras High Court that the appellant failed to

bring to the notice of the Bombay High Court that the

Madras High Court was already seized with the matter. Had

the appellant brought to the notice of the Bombay High

Court about the proceedings entertained by the Madras High

6

Page 7

Court, which were much prior to the suit filed by them, the

Bombay High Court would not have passed the attachment

order.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, Division

Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the application

keeping it open for the appellant to lay their claim under

Order XLII Rule 11 of Original Side Rules. The Division Bench

held that once the suit is filed invoking admiralty jurisdiction

of the Madras High Court, the suit in rem, it decides the

interest of not only parties to the suit but also other parties

who are interested in the property under arrest or in the

fund. The High Court observed thus:-

“Madras High Court, while deciding the issues in the suit filed under admiralty jurisdiction has considered the interest and also priorities of all interveners and also parties to the suit. We follow the judgment of Apex Court in M.V. Elisabeth and others vs. Harwan Investment & Trading Pvt Ltd., Hanoekar House, Swatontapeth, Vasco- De-Gama, Goa, reported in AIR 1993 SC 1014. The catena of judgments relied on by the appellant are no way useful to them. The appellant ought to have made the claim under Rule 11 of Order XLII of O.S. Rules. In the ordinary course, no Court is so prestige-conscious that it will stand in the way of legitimate legal proceedings for redressal or

7

Page 8

relief sought for by the litigant. We find that necessary parties are not impleaded by the appellant herein and Jansee Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd., which is sought to be impleaded as seventh respondent in this appeal, is not a necessary party to resolve the disputes involved in this appeal. It is not open to the appellant to convert the appeal against the order dated 05.10.1998 instead of 06.10.1998, as the leave was granted to file the appeal only against the order dated 06.10.1998. Liberty was granted to Appellant to file their claim under Order XLII Rule 11 of O.S. Rules.”

9. Hence, this appeal by special leave by the appellant.

10. Ms. Vijaylaxmi Menon, learned counsel appearing for

the appellant, assailed the impugned order passed by the

Madras High Court on various grounds. At the very outset,

learned counsel submitted that the High Court erred in

holding that money lying with the Advocate Commissioner

was custodial legis. Learned counsel contended that the

High Court in the impugned judgment overlooked that the

appellant-execution creditor attempted to intervene in the

pending admiralty suit in the Madras High Court on 12th

December, 1997 leading to an order dated 24th January,

1998, whereby the appellant was directed to work out its

remedies in execution. In other words, the appellant was not

8

Page 9

allowed to intervene in the pending admiralty suit in the

Madras High Court. On the contrary, the High Court held

that the appellant ought to have been intervened in the suit

with its application under Order 42 Rule 11 of the Original

Side Rules of the Madras High Court.

11. Ms. Menon further contended that there is nothing in

the aforesaid O.S. Rules that requires a decree holder, who

has secured a valid attachment, to seek to intervene in the

pending admiralty suit, particularly, when in the previous

application filed by the decree holder, an order has already

been passed directing the decree holder to work out its

remedies in execution.

12. Learned counsel further contended that the High Court

overlooked the grievances of the appellant and failed to

appreciate the fact that the custody Court was acting in a

dual capacity of an admiralty Court vested with the higher

degree of responsibility and accountability upon both the

9

Page 10

Registrar of Madras High Court and the Advocate

Commissioner appointed in the pending admiralty suit.

13. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the order of

Bombay High Court dated 3rd September, 1999 at no stage

ever ordered dismissal of the Appellant’s Execution

Application, either before or after the disbursal of monies by

the Madras High Court. Thus, no scope or requirement arose

for the Appellant to challenge the Order dated 3rd

September, 1999 of the Bombay High Court. The

surrounding circumstances preceding such order are

important, viz. that faced with a brazen silence and the lack

of explanation, since the Registrar of the Madras High Court

failed to respond despite order of the Bombay High Court,

the only restrained option left to the Bombay High Court was

to enable the appellant to urge matters before the Madras

High Court. Ordinary remedies of contempt of Court in

relation to non-compliance of orders of the Bombay High

Court by the Registrar of the Madras High Court were

10

Page 11

available, but were rather too harsh for the Appellant to

pursue, hence the Appellant pursued its Appeal already

pending before the Madras High Court.

14. Mr. P.B. Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent Nos. 1 to 4, firstly submitted that the Bombay

High Court by order dated 3.9.1999 had directed the

appellant to make its claim before the Madras High Court,

but the appellant had not challenged that order, which

attained the finality. Moreover, the High Court of Madras

by order dated 27.11.2003, had given liberty to the

appellant to lay the claim before it under Order 42 Rule 11

of the Rules of the Madras High Court. Learned counsel then

submitted that there are seven other creditors, whose claims

are pending before the Madras High Court. Those creditors

are parties to the suit and they have lost their claim before

the Madras high Court against the sale proceeds lying in the

High Court.

11

Page 12

15. Learned counsel then submitted that the Madras High

Court being the transferee Court had jurisdiction to

determine the inter-se priorities of all the creditors or the

claimants, in terms of proviso to Order 21 Rule 52 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as the vessel/ ship was sold

free from all encumbrances, being a sale conducted in an

action in rem.

16. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant had

knowledge of the proceedings pending before the learned

Single Judge of the Madras High Court, where all the

creditors were seeking relief for disbursement of fund. The

appellant had chosen not to object to the said disbursement

and not participated in the proceeding. The appellant, who

is an unsecured creditor, by standing outside the Court

cannot claim exclusively on the basis of an order of

attachment.

12

Page 13

17. We have elaborately heard the learned counsel

appearing for the parties. It has been pleaded on behalf of

the appellant that the appellant had obtained a decree for a

sum of US$ 50,081.74 with interest from the Bombay High

Court in a suit against the judgment debtor and had also

obtained an order of sale of a ship of the judgment debtor

which was lying in the territorial waters of India at Madras.

The said ship had also been attached by the orders of the

Madras High Court in a suit filed by respondent No.1 for US$

15,975.04. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court on

17.4.1997 appointed an Advocate Commissioner in order to

bring the said ship to sale, with a view to preserve/prevent

her from deterioration and thereby protect her creditors. It

is further pleaded that in April, 1997 the ship was brought to

sale and on 26.5.1997 an earnest money of Rs.35,60,000/-

was received by the Advocate Commissioner from one M/s.

Jansee Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. On 24.8.1997, the bid of

Jansee Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd was accepted and the Madras

High Court confirmed the sale in its favour and the balance

13

Page 14

amount was directed to be remitted. The Advocate

Commissioner was informed about the decree of the

appellant on 25.9.1997. On 24.1.1998, the Madras High

Court again confirmed the sale in favour of M/s. Jansee Steel

Industries Pvt. Ltd. In April 1998, however, the said sale was

set aside in appeal and a fresh sale was directed.

18. It is appellant’s case that in an execution application

filed by the appellant, Bombay High Court on 17.3.1998

issued an attachment order under Order 21 Rule 52 of the

CPC directing attachment of a sum of US$ 58,325.64

(approximately Rs.20 lakhs) from and out of the funds

deposited by M/s. Jansee Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. until

further orders of the Madras High Court. The said order of

attachment was received by the Madras High Court on 16th

June, 1998. Meanwhile, on 23.4.1998, the sale was set aside

and a fresh tender was directed by the Division Bench of the

Madras High Court. However, the amount of earnest money

14

Page 15

lying with the Advocate Commissioner was not returned to

M/s. Jansee Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. On 1.9.1998, Madras

High Court accepted the only bid of M/s. Jansee Steel

Industries Pvt. Ltd. and directed that the moneys be held

over to the account of the suit. On 7.9.1998, Registry of the

Madras High Court effected the attachment and returned the

notice of the Bombay High Court with a pro order to the

Bombay High Court confirming that the monies directed by

the Bombay High Court to be attached stood duly held to the

credit of the appellant. On 25.9.1998, Bombay High Court

passed an order directing the Registrar of the Madras High

Court to remit the funds lying pursuant to the Order 21 Rule

52 attachment.

19. The appellant’s case in a nutshell is that ignoring the

decree and the attachment of the Bombay High Court, the

Madras High Court on 5.10.1998 paid moneys to the crew

and other charges to other creditors who have no decree in

15

Page 16

their favour. On 6.10.1998, on an application filed by the

Advocate Commissioner showing the disbursements, the

Madras High Court confirmed the disbursements and

directed that the balance amount be placed in a fixed

deposit in view of the order of the Bombay High Court which,

it is specifically stated, was brought to its notice on

6.10.1998 only. Learned counsel vehemently contended

that the aforesaid events would show that even though the

appellant was a decree holder and had priority over all other

creditors, money was disbursed without there being any

adjudication of priority or dispute of title by the Madras High

Court, which disbursement could only have been done by

Bombay High Court. Learned counsel for the appellant also

contended that Madras High Court had no jurisdiction to deal

with the moneys once the same were attached under Rule

52 of Order 21 CPC.

16

Page 17

20. It is the case of the respondent that the appellant had

knowledge of the proceedings before the Madras High Court

right from its inception and despite this, the appellant did

not participate in any of the proceedings before the learned

Single Judge and allowed orders to be passed. Division

Bench of the Madras High Court vide impugned judgment

has, therefore, given liberty to the appellant to make its

claims before the learned Single Judge under Order XLII Rule

11 of O.S. Rules of the Madras High Court. It has been

further contended that the appellant specifically stated in its

suit filed before the Bombay High Court that the subject

vessel is lying in the port at Chennai and it is only to

conveniently avoid the contest with other creditors who have

all lodged their claims before the Madras High Court the suit

was filed in Bombay. Further, the appellant was the lone

claimant before the Bombay High Court whereas all the

other claimants were pursuing their claims before the

Madras High Court, which alone has jurisdiction to decide on

17

Page 18

the rights of the parties and the inter se priorities amongst

them.

21. Admittedly the vessel is berthed at the Madras harbor

and, therefore, the Madras High Court alone had jurisdiction

to entertain any claim against the subject vessel as per

provisions of Section 3(15) of the Merchant Shipping Act,

1958. The arrest of vessel by the Madras High Court being

the first arrest, the vessel and the sale proceeds are

custodial legis of the said court and no proceedings in

Bombay High Court can be maintained subsequently without

leave of the Madras High Court. It is also not in dispute that

after the decree got transmitted to the Madras High Court,

appellant had again moved Bombay High Court and obtained

attachment order without notice to the creditors and

claimants before the Madras High Court, which act of the

appellant clearly exposes that it conveniently wanted to

avoid any contest of its claim by other creditors/claimants.

18

Page 19

22. We have gone through the relevant provisions of Order

XLII of Madras High Court Original Side Rules: The said Rule

reads as under:-

“Rule 3. In suits in rem a warrant for the arrest of the property maybe issued at the instance either of the plaintiff or of the defendant at any time after the suit has been instituted, but no warrant of arrest shall be issued until an affidavit by the party or his agent has been filed, and the following provisions complied with:

A. The affidavit shall state the name and description of the party at whose instance the warrant is to be issued, the nature of the claim or counter-claim, the name and nature of the property to be arrested, and that the claim or counter- claim has not been satisfied. B. In a suit of wages or of possession, the affidavit shall state the national character of the vessel proceeded against; and if against a foreign vessel, that notice of the institution of the suit has been given to the consul of the State to which the vessel belongs, if there be one resident in Madras and a copy of the notice shall be annexed to the affidavit. C. In a suit of bottomry, the bottomry bond and if a foreign language also a notarial translation thereof, shall be produced for the inspection and perusal of the Registrar, and a copy of the bond, or of the translation thereof, certified to be correct shall be annexed to the affidavit.

19

Page 20

D. In a suit of distribution of salvage, the affidavit shall state the amount of salvage money awarded or agreed to be accepted, and the name and address and description of the party holding the same.

8. In suits in rem, sevice of summons or warrant against ship, freight or cargo on board is to effected by nailing or affixing the original writ or warrant for a short time on the main mast or on the single mast of the vessel and by taking off the process leaving a true copy of it nailed or affixed in its place.

11. In a suit in rem, any person not named in the writ may intervene and appear on filing an affidavit showing that he is interested in the property under arrest or in the fund in the Registry.”

23. Perusal of the aforesaid Rule would show that in a suit

in rem warrant of arrest of vessel is issued by the High

Court, all interested persons shall have a right to intervene

and lay their claim by filing an affidavit showing that he is

interested in the property under arrest.

24. In the impugned judgment, Madras High Court has

discussed elaborately the sequence of events and reasons of

disallowing the claim of the appellant.

20

Page 21

25. Indisputably in admiralty proceedings, where several

persons have lodged their claim, even the attachment made

by Bombay High Court has to be decided only if an

application for payment of attached amount is made.

Admittedly the appellant without approaching the admiralty

proceedings sought a declaration that it is not entitled to

priority. Being fully aware of the development of the

proceedings and suits in the Madras High Court, the

appellant did not raise any objection. In the result, the

learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court after hearing

all the parties, who had approached the Court, passed the

order. In our considered opinion, once the decree was

transferred and transmitted by the Bombay High Court to

the Madras High Court, the appellant could not have moved

the Bombay High Court and obtained an order without notice

to the creditors and claimants. We are further of the view

that when the property was in the custody of Madras High

Court, being the transferee court in question of title of

21

Page 22

priority arisen between the person having decree in his

favour and person not being the judgment debtor is to be

determined by the transferee court. We are unable to

accept the submission of the learned counsel for the

appellant that after order of attachment under Order XX1

Rule 52 CPC, the Registry of Madras High Court had to remit

the amount to Bombay High Court ignoring the pendency of

proceedings in the Madras High Court.

26. The decision in Shivshankar Gurgar vs. Dilip, (2014)

2 SCC 465 relied upon by Mrs. Menon, learned counsel

appearing for the appellant, for the proposition that the

executing court cannot go behind the decree is not at all

applicable in the facts of the present case. In the said

decision, while considering an order of modification of the

compromise decree by the executing court it was held that it

will amount to modification of decree and, therefore, the

same is without jurisdiction. Similarly, the decision in the

case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs.

22

Page 23

Modern Construction and Company, (2014) 1 SCC 648,

for the proposition that in the absence of any challenge to

the decree the executing court cannot go behind the decree,

will also be of no help to the appellant.

27. Further Mrs. Menon relied upon a decision in the case of

Shaukat Hussain alias Ali Akram and Others vs. Smt.

Bhuneshwari Devi (dead) by Lrs. and Others, (1972) 2

SCC 731 with regard to the power of the court which passed

the decree and the transferee court where the decree is

transferred will equally have no application in the present

case where the Madras High Court exercised admiralty

jurisdiction.

28. It is worth to mention here that the Bombay High Court

on 3.9.1999 gave liberty to the appellant to move the

Madras High Court for appropriate order for disbursement of

amount. The Bombay Court held that no further direction is

required. For better appreciation, the order dated 3.9.1999

23

Page 24

in the admiralty suit filed by the appellant is quoted

hereinbelow :-

“According to the office of the Prothonotary the position remains the same as 31st august, 1999. In other words, no communication has been received from the Madras High Court. However, Ms. Sethna, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, has very fairly brought to the notice of this Court an order passed by the Madras High Court on 6th October, 1998. After noticing the orders passed by this Court, the Madras High Court is directed that the amount of Rs.12,38,164/- should be deposited in a fixed deposit for a period of 46 days renewable periodically if necessary in the name of the Registrar, High Court, Madras to the credit of the suit. As noticed earlier, the plaintiff has already filed Appeal No.175 of 1998 in the Madras High Court. In view of the above the plaintiffs are at liberty to move the Madras High Court for appropriate orders for disbursement of the aforesaid amount on the basis of the decree passed by this Court.

In view of the above no further directions are required.

……..”

29. It has not been disputed by the appellant that the

Bombay High Court while passing the order of attachment

was not aware about the fact that the vessel was seized by

the Madras High Court much prior to the filing of the suit by

the appellant in Bombay High Court. The Division Bench in

the impugned order has recorded the finding that Madras

High Court while deciding the issues in the suit filed under

24

Page 25

admiralty jurisdiction had considered the interest and also

priorities of all interveners and also parties to the suit. It

was held that the appellant ought to have made claim under

Order XLII Rule 11 of the OS Rules. The Division Bench

rightly held that no court is so prestige conscious that it will

stand in the way of legitimate legal proceedings for redressal

or relief sought for by the litigant. The Court also took notice

of the fact that the necessary parties who had led their

claims had not been impleaded by the appellant in the

proceedings.

30. In the facts and circumstances of the case and having

regard to the law settled, so far the admiralty jurisdiction of

the Court is concerned, we do not find any reason to differ

with the findings recorded by the Division Bench of the High

Court in the impugned order. For the reason aforesaid, we

do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly

dismissed, however with no order as to costs.

25

Page 26

…………………………….J. (M.Y. Eqbal)

…………………………….J. (Shiva Kirti Singh)

New Delhi February 17, 2015

26

Page 27

ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.11 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 6156/2005 PETROMARINE PRODUCTS LTD. Appellant(s) VERSUS OCEAN MARINE SERVICES CO. LTD. & ANR Respondent(s) [HEARD BY HON'BLE M.Y.EQBAL AND HON'BLE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] Date : 17/02/2015 This appeal was called on for judgment

today. For Appellant(s) Ms. Fereshte D. Sethna, Adv.

Mr. Kuber Dewan, Adv. Ms. Akriti, Adv.

for Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi Menon,AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. P.B. Suresh, Adv.

for M/s. Temple Law Firm Mr. Nikhil Nayyar,AOR Mr. Subramonium Prasad,AOR

Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y.Eqbal pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh.

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the Reportable judgment, which is placed on the file.

(Parveen Kr. Chawla) (Indu Pokhriyal) Court Master Court Master

27