AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (2) TMI 369
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the High Court dismissing its petition for condonation of delay in presenting O.S.A.S.R. No. 39789 of 1988 in the High Court. We held that the appeal filed by the 3rd defendant had to be heard on the merits particularly on the question of law regarding the liability of the agent. 3. We shall now deal with the appeal arising from SLP(C) No. 10542 of 1985 where the only question is whether the learned Judges of the High Court have rightly held that the respondent's suit was maintainable in respect of the cause of action alleged to have arisen on or after 1.2.1984 when the vessel, M.V. Elisabeth, was lying in the Port of Marmagao; on 8.2.1984 when the vessel left the Port without issuing bills of lading or other documents for the goods shipped as required by the plaintiff-snipper; and, subsequently when the goods were discharged and handed over to the consignee at the port of destination at Ras-Al-Khaimah, United Arab Emirates during the period from 13.2.84 to 19.2.84, notwithstanding the direction of the plaintiff not to deliver the goods by reason of the buyer's failure to pay the agreed price. The 1st defendant, M.V. Elisabeth, is a vessel of foreign nationality and it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n. If that question were to be answered in favour of the defendants, it would be unnecessary to express any view on the merits of the Transferred Case, for the suit itself would then stand dismissed. 7. Mr. Raju Ramachandran, appearing for the appellants (defendants), raises a fundamental objection as to the assumption of admiralty jurisdiction over a foreign ship in respect of a claim arising in connection with the carriage of goods from an Indian port to a port outside India. The High Court, he says, ordered the arrest of the vessel in purported exercise of its jurisdiction on the admiralty side. The power of the High Court on the admiralty side is, however, contained in and confined to the provisions of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Victoria, Ch. 10) made applicable to India by the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Victoriae) (which are Acts of the British Parliament) read with the Colonial Courts of Admiralty (India) Act, 189/1 (Act No. 16 of 1891) declaring certain Indian Courts of unlimited civil jurisdiction as colonial courts of admiralty and declaring the High Court of Judicature at Madras as one of such courts. Mr. Ramachandran does not dispute tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the High Court has stated is based on a realistic appreciation of the need for liberal construction of the statutes so as to support assumption of jurisdiction to render justice where justice is required to be done rather than resorting to a technical or narrow or pedantic construction resulting in a state of helplessness. Counsel says that every person has a right to approach the Court of the land for appropriate remedy in respect of claims against a foreign ship and its owner, and to deny him that right and to compel him to pursue remedy in a foreign country according to an unfamiliar system of law and practice in strange and uncertain conditions, and consequently incurring high expenses with all the uncertainties of such a pursuit, is unjust and uncalled for. All major systems of law the world over recognise the competence of the coastal State to assume jurisdiction over a foreign ship entering its waters in respect of certain well recognised claims, irrespective of where the cause of action arose or where the defendant has his place of residence or business. The reason for this wide exercise of jurisdiction is that the foreign owner being not available within jurisdiction, and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isdiction as was vested in the Madras High Court prior to the transfer of that territory. The question is as regards the extent and nature of that jurisdiction. 11. The powers of the Madras High Court are traceable to the Admirably Court Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Victoriae c. 104) by reason of the Letters Patent of 1865 read with the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890 and the Colonial Courts of Admiralty (India) Act, 1891. By the last two Acts, the Madras High Court was invested with the same admiralty jurisdiction as was vested in the High Court of England. The Letters Patent of 1865 declared that the High Court of Madras would and continue to be a court of record and that it would exercise ordinary, original and civil jurisdiction within its local limits to try and determine suits. The Government of India Act, 1915 declared that all the High Courts established by Letters Patent were courts of record and had such original and appellate jurisdiction including admiralty jurisdiction as had been vested in them by Letters Patent. The Government of India Act, 1935 declared mat 'every High Court shall be a court of record' and that its jurisdiction, the law administered by it and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing to outward cargo, as distinguished from inward cargo. 13. The rationale of these decisions is that the chartered High Courts in India are Colonial Courts of Admiralty under Act 16 of 1891 exercising the same jurisdiction as was vested in the High Court of Admiralty in England under the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, and the subsequent merger of the English High Court of Admiralty with the English High Court of Justice in 1875 and the expansion of jurisdiction of that High Court under subsequent statutes did not expand the admiralty power of the Indian High Court or merge it with its ordinary original civil jurisdiction. P.B. Mukharji, J. of the Calcutta High Court in Jayaswal Shipping Company v. 'S.S. Leelavati' AIR 1954 Cal 415 highlights this aspect thus: ...Courts of Admiralty are courts of specific jurisdiction and if a controversy does not come within their specific jurisdiction, they cannot entertain it, and in mat respect are unlike the courts of residuary jurisdiction such as the Common Law Courts or in India the Courts of ordinary original civil jurisdiction. In National Co. Ltd. v. Asia Mariner 72 CWN 635, S.K. uknerjea, J. of the Calcutta High Court states: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e same admiralty jurisdiction as was exercised by the High Court of Admiralty in England in 1890 when the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act was passed by the British Parliament. We have, therefore, to examine and ascertain as to what was the scope and nature of jurisdiction of the High Court of Admiralty in England either under any statute or otherwise in the year 1890, because, it would be just that jurisdiction which is exercisable by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay down to date. With respect we disagree. All this is reminiscent of a bygone age. The learned Judge failed to take note of the fact that in 1890 the Court of Admiralty had ceased to be a separate and distinct institution. By the Judicature Act of 1873, the High Court of Admiralty was merged with the High Court of Justice. It is, however, true that the substantive powers in admiralty matters were derived from the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, and those powers were not widened until 1920. The learned Judge further observes: ...In my opinion, therefore, the present suit falls within the exclusive Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court and could not have been filed on the Ordinary Original Side of the High Court, m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in England. We shall now read the provisions of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890, so far as they are material. 2. (1). Colonial Courts of Admiralty - Every court of law in a British possession, which is for the time being declared in pursuance of this Act to be a court of Admiralty, or which, if no such declaration is in force in the possession, has therein original unlimited civil jurisdiction, shall be a court of Admiralty, with the jurisdiction in this Act mentioned, and may for the purpose of that jurisdiction exercise all the powers which it possesses for the purpose of its other civil jurisdiction, and such court in reference to the jurisdiction conferred by this Act is in this Act referred to as a Colonial Court of Admiralty.... (2). The jurisdiction of a Colonial Court of Admiralty shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be over the like places, persons, matters, and things, as the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court in England, whether existing by virtue of any statute or to otherwise, and the Colonial Court of Admiralty may exercise such jurisdiction in like manner and to as full an extent as the High Court in England, and shall have the same rega....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hus draws a distinction between courts of unlimited jurisdiction falling under Clause (a) and courts of limited jurisdiction falling under Clause (b). The admiralty jurisdiction of the former was wider than that which was conferred on the latter. 22. Section 7 confers power to make rules of court to regulate the procedure and practice of the court in the exercise of its admiralty jurisdiction. This section provides: Section 7. - (1) Rules of court for regulating the procedure and practice (including fees and costs) in a court in a British possession in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by this Act, whether original or appellate, may be made by the same authority and in the same manner as rules touching the practice, procedure, fees, and costs in the said court in the exercise of its ordinary civil jurisdiction respectively are made. (2)... (3) Such rules may provide for the exercise of any jurisdiction conferred by this Act by the full court, or by any judge or judges thereof, and subject to any rules, where the ordinary civil jurisdiction of the court can in any case be exercised by a single judge, any jurisdiction conferred by this Act may in the like case be exer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, persons, matters and things to that of the English High Court. As the admiralty jurisdiction of the English High Courts expanded with the progress of legislation, and with the repeal of the earlier statutes, including in substance the Admiralty Court Acts of 1840 and 1861, it would have been reasonable and rational to attribute to the Indian High Courts a corresponding growth and expansion of admiralty jurisdiction during the pre-independence era. But a restrictive view was taken on the question in the decisions of the High Courts cited above. 27. There is no reason why the jurisdiction of the Indian High Courts should have been considered to have frozen and atrophied on the date of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890. If this had not been considered to have happened, and a liberal construction had been adopted by courts, the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court would in any case have been considered to have progressed up to the level of the English Administration of Justice Act, 1928, which was the last of aeries of enactments in England on the subject prior to 1947, and consequently the Indian High Court would have been treated as a consolidated court on the basis ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1) as a Colonial Court of Admiralty. It is not clear whether that Court was in its jurisdiction comparable to the Indian High Courts. Assuming that it was comparable at the relevant time, and whatever be the relevance of The Yuri Maru (supra) to Courts like the Exchequer Court of Canada, we see no reason why the jurisdiction of the Indian High Courts, governed as they now are by the Constitution of India, should in any way be subjected to the jurisdictional fetters imposed by the Privy Council in that decision. Legal history is good guidance for the future, but to surrender to the former is to lose the latter. 31. A short account of the English statutes on admiralty jurisdiction and the power exercised by the English Courts over foreign ships will be helpful in understanding the nature and extent of the admiralty jurisdiction of the Indian Courts. We shall, therefore, briefly discuss the salient features of the admiralty jurisdiction of the English Courts. 32. The customs and practices of the commercial and maritime courts and the Law Merchant administered by them and the jurisdiction assumed by the Admiral over ships and things at sea and the conflict which arose between the Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd traditions and principles, has adopted as the English maritime3 law'. 'Neither the laws of the Rhodians, nor of Oleron, nor of Visby, nor of the Hanse towns, are of themselves any part of the Admiralty law of England... But they contain many principles and statements of marine practice, which, together with principles found in the Digest, and in the French, and other Ordinances, were used by the judges of the English court of Admiralty, when they were moulding and reducing to form the principles and practice of their Court4." 35. The Admiralty Court Act, 1840 was the first of a series of statutes extending and defining the jurisdiction of the High Court of Admiralty in England. This Act was followed by the Admiralty Court Act, 1861 conferring larger powers upon the High Court of Admiralty. Section 6 of this Act empowered the High Court of Admiralty to assume jurisdiction over foreign ships in respect of claims to cargo carried into any port in England or Wales5. Significantly, the Act did not apply to outward cargo. Section 7 of the Act, however, conferred jurisdiction on the High Court of Admiralty "over any claim for damage done by any ship". 'This Act was followe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith ships or aircraft in the High Court apart from this section which is for the time being assigned by rules of court to the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division". Sub-section (4) of this section removed the restriction based on the ownership of the ship. It says that the jurisdiction applied to all ships or aircraft, "whether British or not and whether registered or not and wherever the residence or domicile of their owners may be" and "in relation to all claims, wheresoever arising". The jurisdiction in regard to the questions or claims specified under section l(i) includes "any claim for damage done by a ship", "any claim for loss of or damage to goods carried in a snip", "any claim arising out of any agreement relating to the carriage of goods in a ship or to the use or hire of a snip" [See Clauses (d), (g) & (h)]. 38. These claims are now specifically mentioned under Clauses (e), (g)and (h) respectively of Section 20(2) of the Supreme Court Act, 1981, amongst other claims, as falling under the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court. Part II of this Act is derived substantially from Part I of the 1956 Act which was enacted to give effect to the Brussels Convention of 195....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... England and Wales or the determination of a connected matter in the English High Court or the submission of the defendant to the jurisdiction of that court, are not applicable to a proceeding commenced as an admiralty action in rem. See Order 75, Rule 4(3) of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 19659. 42. The Civil jurisdiction and judgments Act, 1982 enacted into English Law and Scottish Law the EEC Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters. 43. Describing the unified court structure in England, Jackson sums up: The Admiralty Court developed independently, having its own battle with common law courts over jurisdictional boundaries. During the 18th and early 19th centuries its influence and power decreased, but through statutes of 1840 and 1861 the court received a firm foundation on which it has built since. It came in from the cold into the general union of courts in 1873-5 and is now integrated into the High Court, being a branch of the Queen's Bench Division. ... Once under the umbrella of the unified court structure, common law and equitable principles became directly available in the Admiralty Court. No longer need claima....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e for the full amount of the plaintiffs established claim. Likewise, a defendant acknowledging service in an action in rem is liable to be saddled with full liability even when the amount of the judgment exceeds the value of the res or of the bail provided. An action in rem lies in the English High Court in respect of matters regulated by the Supreme Court Act, 1981, and in relation to a number of claims the jurisdiction can be invoked not only against the offending ship in question but also against a 'sistership' i.e., a ship in the same beneficial ownership as the ship in regard to which the claim arose. The vessel which commits the aggression is treated as the offender, as the guilty instrument or thing to which the forfeiture attaches, without any reference whatsoever to the character or conduct of the owner... Per Justice Story, The United States v. The Big Malek Adhel, etc. 43 US 210 . 48. Merchant ships of different nationalities travel from port to port carrying goods or passengers. They incur liabilities in the course of their voyage and they subject themselves to the jurisdiction of foreign States when they enter the waters of those States. They are liable to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt which has ordered the arrest. But the marshal's right under the attachment, order is not one of possession, but only of custody. Although the custody of the vessel has passed from the defendant to the marshal, all the possessory rights which previously existed continue to exist, including all the remedies which are based on possession. The warrant usually contains a monition to all persons interested to appear before the court on a particular day and show cause why the property should not be condemned and sold to satisfy the claim of the plaintiff. 51. The attachment being only a method of safeguarding the interest of the plaintiff by providing him with a security, it is not likely to be ordered if the defendant or his lawyer agrees to "accept service and to put in bail or to pay money into court in lieu of bail". (See Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th edn, Vol. 1 p. 375 etc.) 52. The service of the warrant is usually effected by affixing it on the main mast or single mast of the snip. A ship which has been arrested under an order of attachment may be released by the court if sufficient bail is put in to cover the claim of the plaintiff as well as the costs of the action....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...." with the ship. Because the ship has to "pay for the wrong it has done", it can be compelled to do so by a forced sale. (See The Bold Buccleaugh, (1851) 7 Moo. PC 267). In addition to maritime liens, a ship is liable to be arrested in England in enforcement of statutory rights in rent (Supreme Court Act, 1981). If the owner does not submit to the jurisdiction and appear before the court to put in bail and release the ship, it is liable to be condemned and sold to satisfy the claims against her. If, however, the owner submits to jurisdiction and obtains the release of the ship by depositing security, he becomes personally liable to be proceeded against in personam in execution of the judgment if the amount decreed exceeds the amount of the bail. The arrest of the foreign ship by means of an action in rem is thus a means of assuming jurisdiction by the competent court. 58. The admiralty action in rem, as practised in England or in the United States, is unknown to the civil law. In countries following the civil law, all proceedings are initiated by actions in personam. The President of the Court having competence in the matter has the power to order an attachment of the ship if he i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a part of the general legal system as any other branch of the law. With the merger of the Admiralty and Common Law Courts in England in 1875 and the fusion of their legal precepts and concepts, this branch of the law, despite its peculiarities about actions in rem, is no longer treated as a separate and independent branch. It is not the exclusive preserve of the English High Court, for certain county courts in that country are specially authorised to exercise this jurisdiction. This is much more true of the civil law system where no distinction is drawn between maritime law and other branches of the law, and they are administered alike by the same courts or tribunals. 61. It may not be correct to say that the admiralty jurisdiction of the English Courts is dependent entirely on statutes. It may be true in a very limited sense as regards the jurisdiction of the High Court after the merger of the High Court of Admiralty with the High Court of justice by the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873 which came into force in 1875: See Supreme Court of Judicature (Commencement) Act, 1874. Even so, statutes are codifications of legal principles developed by the decisions of Courts and those....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uperimposed over the years by various statutory enactments from time to time. The right to seize a vessel by legal process is therefore partly based on rights conferred by general maritime law and partly upon the right to take legal action of this nature granted by statute...". Maritime Law, 2nd ed.p.93. 64. In tracing the history of admiralty law in India, it is likewise misleading and incorrect to confine it to statutes. Statutes have been codifications of rules of law as developed by usage, practice and custom. As stated by Westropp, C.J., of the Bombay High Court in Bardot and Anr. v. The American Ship Or Vessel 'Augusta' 1873(X) Bombay High Court Reports, 110 at p.113: ...If we have jurisdiction to entertain this suit, it must be sought for in the general maritime law administered by Courts of Admiralty... ...We must hold it to be quite clear that the Statutes 3 & 4 Vict. c. 65 (1840), 24 Vict. c. 10 (1861), and 26 & 27 Vict. c. 24 (1863), do not increase or in any wise affect our jurisdiction either in Admiralty or Vice-Admiralty, and that if we have jurisdiction to entertain this cause, that jurisdiction must be sought for outside those Statutes. 65. Where stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d appellate jurisdiction. They have inherent and plenary powers. Unless expressly or impliedly barred, and subject to the appellate or discretionary jurisdiction of this Court, the High Courts have unlimited jurisdiction, including the jurisdiction to determine their own powers. (See Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. [1966] 3 SCR 744 . As stated in Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th edition, Vol.10, para 713: Prima facie, no matter is deemed to be beyond the jurisdiction of a superior court unless it is expressly shown to be so, while nothing is within the jurisdiction of an inferior court unless it is expressly shown on the face of the proceedings that the particular matter is within the cognizance of the particular court. 68. The observation of this Court in Raja Soap Factory and Ors. v. S.P. Shantharaj and Ors. [1965] 2 SCR 800 , that Section 151 of the CPC did not confer on the High Court jurisdiction which was not specifically vested was made in the context of Section 105 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act (43 of 1958) which conferred a specific jurisdiction in respect of a passing off action. That observation is not relevant to the q....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e jurisdiction of our courts were to be, by compulsions of history, considered to be curtailed and dovetailed to the colonial past - a proposition which is neither correct nor consistent with our status as a sovereign republic. It is time to take a fresh look at the old precedents. 71. In this connection we would refer to the recent decision of this Court in Delhi Judicial Service Association, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi v. State of Gujarat and Ors. 1991 Cri LJ 3086 . This Court stated: ...The Constitution has assigned a new role to the Constitutional Courts to ensure rule of law in the country... Time has come to have a fresh look at the old precedents and to lay down law with the changed perceptions keeping in view the provisions of the Constitution.... See also S.P. Gupta v. Union of India [1982] 2 SCR 365 72. It is well recognised in international law that a merchant ship, though generally governed by the laws of the flag State, subjects itself to the jurisdiction of a foreign State as it enters its waters. The Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, 1958 and the Law of the Sea Convention, 1982 affirm that the sovereignty of a State extends over its ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 1952.12 The maritime claims in respect of which the power of arrest is recognised in law include claims relating to damage caused by any ship either in collision or otherwise; claims relating to carriage of goods in any ship whether by charter party or otherwise, loss of or damage to goods etc. These principles of international law, as generally recognised by nations, leave no doubt that, subject to the local laws regulating the competence of courts, all foreign ships lying within the waters of a State, including waters in ports, harbours, roadsteads, and the territories waters, subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the local authorities in respect of maritime claims and they are liable to be arrested for the enforcement of such claims. 76. In India, carriage of goods by sea is governed by the Indian Bills of Lading Act, 1856, the Indian Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925, the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, and general statutes, such as the Marine Insurance Act, 1963, the Contract Act, 1872, the Evidence Act, 1872, the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the Companies Act, 1956, etc. et....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nited Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea, 1978 adopting the Hamburg Rules. The Hamburg Rules prescribe the minimum liabilities of the carrier far more justly and equitably than the Hague Rules so as to correct the tilt in the latter in favour of the carriers. The Hamburg Rules are acclaimed to be a great improvement on the Hague Rules and far more beneficial from the point of view of the cargo owners. India has also not adopted the Intematipnal Convention relating to the Arrest of Sea-going Ships, Brussels, 1952. Nor has India adopted the Brussels Conventions of 1952 on civil and penal jurisdiction in matters of collision; nor the Brussels Conventions of 1926 and 1967 relating to maritime liens and mortgages13. India seems to be lagging behind many other countries in ratifying and adopting the beneficial provisions of various conventions intended to facilitate international trade. Although these conventions have not been adopted by legislation, the principles incorporated in the conventions are themselves derived from the common law of nations as embodying the felt necessities of international trade and are as such part of the common law of India and applicable for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rritorial waters of India, any proper officer may detain the ship for such time as to allow the application to be made and the result thereof to be communicated to the officer detaining the ship, and that officer shall not be liable for any costs or damages in respect of the detention unless the same is proved to have been made without reasonable grounds. (3) In any legal proceedings in relation to any such damage aforesaid, the person giving security shall be made a defendant and shall for the purpose of such proceedings be deemed to be the owner of the ship that has occasioned the damage. (emphasis supplied) The power of enforcement of an order of detention of a foreign ship is dealt with by Section 444. Section 444. Power to enforce detention of ship. - (1) Where under this Act a ship is authorised or ordered to be detained, any commissioned officer of the Indian Navy or any port officer, pilot, harbour master, conservator of port or customs collector may detain the ship. (2) If any ship after detention, of after service on the master of any notice of, or order for, such detention proceeds to sea before she is released by competent authority, the master of the ship shall....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f 1920, 1925, 1956 and 1981, it was unnecessary for the English Courts to construe the expression broadly so as to include cargo claims and the like. The last two enactments contain an exhaustive list of maritime claims and questions in regard to which the High Court can exercise jurisdiction over any merchant ship by arresting it as it enters the waters of Britain. This power, as already noticed, is available, whatever be the nationality of the ship or its owner or the domicile or place of residence or business of the owner, or wherever the cause of action has arisen. About the words 'damage done by a ship' in Section 7 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861 and the decision in The Victoria (1887) 12 PD 105 to the effect that the section had no application to claims against the carrying ship for damage to cargo, the following observation significantly appears in Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th ed, Vol. 1(1), para 319 N. 12. ... but this question is academic in the light of the fact that jurisdiction in respect of claims for damage to cargo carried in a ship is now expressly given by the Supreme Court Act, 1981 Section 20(2)(g). 80. In the absence of any statute in India c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....party. It is, therefore, necessary that he should have recourse to the remedy available to him under the Merchant Shipping Act. That Act, as stated earlier, confers a right to arrest a vessel in respect of any damage caused by a ship. If that. expression, in the absence of any other more appropriate statute, is understood sufficiently broadly as an enabling provision to effectively assume jurisdiction over a foreign ship for the enforcement of a substantive right recognised by law, there would be no difficulty in finding a remedy for the right the law has conferred on the cargo owner. 82. The Merchant Shipping Act empowers the concerned High Court to arrest a ship in respect of a substantive right. A right conferred by the Indian Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925 in respect of outward cargo is one of those rights which can be enforced by arrest and detention of the foreign ship in order to found jurisdiction over the vessel and its owners, just as it can be done in respect of inward cargo by reason of the substantive rights conferred by the Admiralty Court Act, 1961 read with the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890, and other rules of law. The same principle must hold good for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s concerning arrest of ships, civil and penal jurisdiction in matters of collision, maritime liens and mortgages etc. have been incorporated into the municipal laws of many maritime States, India, as stated above, lags behind them in adopting these unified rules.15 By reason of this void, doubts about jurisdiction often arise, as in the present case, when substantive rights, such as those recognised by the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, are sought to be enforced. The remedy lies, apart from enlightened judicial construction, in prompt legislative action to codify and clarify the admiralty laws of this country. This requires thorough research and investigation by a team of experts in admiralty law, comparative law, and public and private international law. Any attempt to codify without such investigation is bound to be futile. 85. No Indian statute defines a maritime claim. The Supreme Court Act, 1981 of England has catalogued maritime claims with reference to the unified rules adopted by the Brussels Convention of 1952 on the Arrest of Seagoing Ships16. Although India has not adopted the various Brussels17 Conventions, the provisions of these Conventions are the result of internati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... record administering justice in relation to persons and things within its jurisdiction. Power to enforce claims against foreign ships is an essential attribute of admiralty jurisdiction and it is assumed over such ships while they are within the jurisdiction of the High Court by arresting and detaining them. 90. All persons and things within the waters of a State fall within its jurisdiction unless specifically curtailed or regulated by rules of international law. The power to arrest a foreign vessel, while in the waters of a coastal State, in respect of a maritime claim, wherever arising, is a demonstrable manifestation and an essential attribute of territorial sovereignty. This power is recognised by several international conventions18. These conventions contain the unified rules of law drawn from different legal systems. Although many of these conventions have yet to be ratified by India, they embody principles of law recognised by the generality of maritime States, and can therefore be regarded as part of our common law. The want of ratification of these conventions is apparently not because of any policy disagreement, as is clear from active and fruitful Indian participation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty powers within the jurisdiction of the former. The contrary view expressed in some of the decisions of the High Courts referred to earlier is clearly wrong. 93. Once a foreign ship is arrested in Indian waters by an order of the High Court, in exercise of the admiralty jurisdiction vested in it by statute, or inherent in it as a court of record, in respect of any maritime claim against its owner, wherever the cause of action may have arisen, and whether or not the ship is subsequently released by the owner furnishing security, proceedings must continue against the owner as in any other suit. The arrest of the vessel while in Indian waters by an order of the concerned High Court, as defined under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 [section 3(15)] attracts the jurisdiction of the competent court to proceed with the trial, as in the case of any other suit, as an action against the owner, and any decree obtained by the plaintiff is executable against any property of the owner available within jurisdiction, including the security furnished by him for release of the vessel. 94. All foreign ships entering Indian waters are presumed to know that they fall within the jurisdiction of this c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1891). Yet there appeared no escape from it, notwithstanding its unpleasant echo in ears. The shock was still greater when it transpired that this state of affairs is due to lack of legislative exercise, even, when in wake of decision of this Court in State of Madras v. C.G. Menon and Ors.19 that 'Article 372 of the Constitution cannot save this law (Fugitive Offenders Act 1881)* because the grouping is repugnant, to the concept of a sovereign democratic republic. the Law Commission in its Fifth Report on British Statutes applicable to India went into detail on scope of Article 372 of the Constitution and observed that the British statutes which were expressly applicable to India because India was a, 'British possession' are still supposed to be applicable to India without any change in the context, therefore, it impressed upon the urgency as far back as 1957 to enact, 'own laws or the subject matter of those statutes where it is necessary to do so and take legislative action making it clear that these statutes are no longer applicable to India.' In pursuance of this recommendation exercise was undertaken and (The) British Statutes (Applicable to India) Repeal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urisdiction under the Madras Supreme Court Act, then Letters Patent of 1862 and 1865. Finally it came to be governed by 1890 Act, enacted, to amend, the law respecting to exercise of Admiralty jurisdiction in British possession.' It was under Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of this Act read with Section 2 of 1891 Act that the then Presidency High Courts, being courts of unlimited, civil jurisdiction, were declared court of Admiralty. Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of 1890 Act spelt out the jurisdiction of Admiralty courts. It reads as under: (2) The jurisdiction of a Colonial Court of Admiralty shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be over the like places, persons, matters, and things, as the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court in England, whether existing by virtue of any statute or otherwise, and the Colonial Court of Admiralty may exercise such jurisdiction in like manner and to as full an extent as the High Court in England, and shall have the same regard as that Court to international law and the comity of nations. Each part of the sub-section is inclined towards expanding jurisdiction. It not only declared those over which the court could exercise jurisdiction ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s that he was provided with a security for his claim up to the value of the res. The essence of right was to identify the ship as wrongdoer and compel it by the arrest to make good the loss. Although the historical review in England dates back to the 14th Century but its statutory recognition was much later and 'maritime law came to jurisprudential maturity in the first half of the 19th Century'23. And the first statutory recognition of such right came in 1840 when the Admiralty Court Act of 1840 was enacted empowering the admiralty court to decide all questions as to the title or ownership of any ship or vessel or the procedure thereof remaining in the territory arising in any cause of possession , salvage, damage, wages or bottomrey. By Clause (6) of the Act jurisdiction was extended to decide all claims and demands whatsoever in the nature of salvage for services rendered to or damage received by any ship or sea going vessel or in the nature of towage or for necessaries supplied to any foreign ship or sea-going vessel and the payment thereof whether such ship or vessel may have been within the body of a country or upon the high seas at the time when the services were ren....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de the jurisdiction of common law i.e. outside the body of a country were inside the jurisdiction of Admiralty '27. "That this Court had originally cognisance of all transaction civil and criminal, upon the high seas, in which its own subjects were concerned, is no subject of controversy'28. To urge, therefore, that the Admiralty court exercising jurisdiction under 1890 Act could not travel beyond 1861 Act would be going against explicit language of the Statute. Even now, the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court of Justice in England is derived 'partly from Statute and partly from the inherent jurisdiction of Admiralty'29. Observations of Lord Diplock in The Jade30 that Admiralty jurisdiction was statutory only have to be understood in the context they were made. By 1976 the statutory law on Admiralty had become quite comprehensive. Brother Thommen, J., had dealt with it in detail. Therefore, those observations are not helpful in deciding the jurisdiction that was exercised by the High Court in England in 1890. 100. From what has been narrated above it is apparent that law of Admiralty progressed gradually from ordinary courts, to courts of Admiralty and ultima....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of new rights but recognition of what was existing by practice or custom. It can thus be safely inferred that the jurisdiction to entertain a claim for tort or breach of contract by owner or master of ship while carrying cargo outside the port could be exercised or was capable of being exercised in 1890 by the High Court of England if occasion arose. The rationale of extending jurisdiction in Admiralty over cargo carried into the port has been existence of a right in owner or consignee arising out of contract or agreement entered between him and the master or owner of the ship. It was the enforcement of the right which was safeguarded by providing a remedy to arrest a ship if the goods were carried into any port. Same rationale applies to redress the owner of bill of lading if the master of the ship in breach of agreement entered into any port committed tort by acting against it in course of outward journey. Such breach would have been actionable and a suit could be filed in the court where agreement was entered. Basis of Maritime Law has been necessity to provide remedy for wrong done on high seas. Inclusion or expansion of jurisdiction was in relation to any cause which coul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jurisdiction of colonial court to exercise power under the English law enacted subsequently because of the use of word 'existing' in 1890 Act. Without entering into the controversy if 1890 Act was a legislation by reference or by incorporation and their consequences, on which arguments were addressed in extenso, suffice it to say that in absence of any consideration of the expression 'otherwise' this Court does not find any difficulty in construing the expression as permissive of jurisdiction. Legislations may create a right or it may recognise one founded on custom or practice. Admiralty statutes in England fell in latter category. In such legislations the background of enactment, the necessity to codify it, the purpose sought to be achieved by it all become relevant. Admiralty jurisdiction in England was rooted in remote past. It developed and expanded with rise and growth of Britain and its recognition as a superior maritime power. Law and practice revolved round it. Right to proceed against owner of ship for wrongs done on high seas was accepted and followed. Statutes of 1840 and 1861 provided legislative base only. Viewed in the background of enactment of 1890 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or may not but a citizen of an independent republic cannot be left high and dry. The construction of law has to be in consonance with sovereignty of a State. The apprehension that assumption of such jurisdiction would be on general attributes of sovereignty is not well founded. This coupled with expansive jurisdiction that the High Courts enjoyed in relation to Admiralty under 1890 Act preserved under Article 225 provided justification for direction to arrest the ship, for the tortuous act done by master or owner of the ship in respect of goods carried outside the port even if there was no specific provision like Section 6 of the 1861 Act. Entertaining a claim arising out of breach of contract in relation to cargo taken out of any Indian port pertains to jurisdiction. It must arise out of Statute. But the power to direct arrest of a ship in exercise of the jurisdiction is one relating to competency. The High Courts in India being courts of unlimited jurisdiction, repository of all judicial power under the Constitution except what is excused are competent to issue directions for arrest of foreign ship in exercise of statutory jurisdiction or even otherwise to effectuate the exercise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n in the "Kasan" (January 13, 1863) and in the "Bahia" (April 21, 1863) English Report, Vol. 167, p. 268, 298. 6 The specific questions and claims enumerated in Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Supreme Court Act, 1981 are: (a) any claim to the possession or ownership of a ship or to the ownership of any share therein; (b) any question arising between the co-owners of a ship as to possession, employment or earnings of that ship; (c) any claim in respect of a mortgage of or charge on a ship or any share therein; (d) any claim for damage received by a ship; (e) any claim for damage done by a ship; (f) any claim for loss of life or personal injury sustained in consequence of any defect in a ship or in her apparel or equipment, or in consequence of the wrongful act, neglect or default of- (i) the owners, charterers or persons in possession or control of a ship; or (ii) the master or crew of a ship, or any other person for whose wrongful acts, neglects or defaults the owners, chatterers or persons in possession or control of a ship are responsible, being an act, neglect or default in the navigation or management of the ship, in the loading, carriage or discharge of g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nvention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to Penal Jurisdiction in Matters of Collision, Brussels, 10 May 1952 (IMC); and (d) International Conventions for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to maritime Liens and Mortgages, Brussels, 10 April 1926, and the Revised Convention on Maritime Lines and Mortgages, Brussels, 29 May 1967 (IMC). 14 Section 7 reads: "The High Court of Admiralty shall have jurisdiction over any Claim for Damage done by any ship. 15 See, for example, the Brussels Conventions listed above. See also the Administration of Justice Act, 1956 and the Supreme Court Act, 1981 incorporating the international rules into English law. 16 International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to the Arrest of Seagoing Ships, Brussels, May 10, 1952. Article 1 of this Convention reads: (1) "Maritime Claim" means a claim arising out of one or more of the following: (a) damage caused by any ship either in collision or otherwise; (b) loss of life or personal injury caused by any ship or occurring in connection with the operation of any ship; (c) salvage; (d) agreement relating to the use or hire of any ship whether by charterpar....