<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1998 (4) TMI 567 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292967</link>
    <description>A maritime limitation action under Part XA of the Merchant Shipping Act is a personal, defensive proceeding, and jurisdiction depends on whether the court can properly entertain the underlying liability claim or is the appropriate forum for the relevant claimant and owner interests. Sections 2(2) and 3(15) do not themselves confer admiralty jurisdiction for such proceedings. The Bombay High Court had no jurisdiction where the collision occurred on the high seas between foreign vessels, the material claimants and most ownership interests were foreign, and only a fortuitous local nexus was shown; the limitation suits and connected orders were therefore set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Dec 2021 10:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=633158" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (4) TMI 567 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292967</link>
      <description>A maritime limitation action under Part XA of the Merchant Shipping Act is a personal, defensive proceeding, and jurisdiction depends on whether the court can properly entertain the underlying liability claim or is the appropriate forum for the relevant claimant and owner interests. Sections 2(2) and 3(15) do not themselves confer admiralty jurisdiction for such proceedings. The Bombay High Court had no jurisdiction where the collision occurred on the high seas between foreign vessels, the material claimants and most ownership interests were foreign, and only a fortuitous local nexus was shown; the limitation suits and connected orders were therefore set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292967</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>