Dipak Kumar Sen, J. - (1.) - Asteroid Maritime Limited, the plaintiff, instituted this suit on the 21st July 1984 against Mohamed Abdul Rehman Orri, Saudi Cargo Carriers Company Limited, Saudi Chartering S.A., Saudi International Shipping Company S. A, Saudi India Navigation Line, M/s Saudi Europe Line, impleaded as defendants Nos 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 respectively, claiming, inter alia, a decree for Rs. 45,70,543.60p interest on the said amount from the 18th June 1984 till the filing of the suit, further interest and costs.
(2.) The plaintiff is a company incorporated in Cyprus. The defendant No. 1 is a national of Saudi Arabia. The defendant no. 2 is a shipping operation and chattering company incorporated in Saudi Arabia. The defendant No. 3 is a ship chartering company also incorporated in Saudi Arabia. The defendant No. 4 is a ship management company incorporated in Greece. The defendant no. 5 is a ship-owning company incorporated in Saudi Arabia. The defendant No. 6 is a ship managing and operating company incorporated in Greece.
(3.) The case of the plaintiff in the plaint appears to be as follows:- a) The plaintiff owns and runs a sea going vessel named M.V. Fidelity (hereinafter referred to as the said vessel) which is a bulk carrier. b) The defendants Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are companies owned and controlled exclusively by the defendant No. 1. c) The plaintiff let out under a time charter the said vessel to the defendant No. 2 for one trip from Spam to the Arabian Gulf via continental Europe and Red Sea. The said charter party was concluded by exchange of telex and recorded in a fixture note. The agreement was entered into in London. d) Under the said charter party the said vessel was delivered to the defendant no. 2 on the 3rd April 1984 at the Port of Cadiz in Spain. e) The defendant No. 3 negotiated the said charter and the defendant No. 4 guaranteed all payments thereunder. f) In terms of the said charter the defendant No. 2 paid to the plaintiff the first three instalments of the semi-monthly hire till the said vessel completed loading. The defendants collected freight from the shippers and issued bills of lading. Thereafter the defendants refused to pay to the plaintiff further rent or charter hire. The defendants committed various breach of faith and trust in London and other places outside the jurisdiction of this court. g) There is due and owing by the defendants to the plaintiff Rs. 45,70,543.60 on account of unpaid rent for charter hire as also cost of bunkers etc. h) In order to defeat the claims of the plaintiff and other creditors the defendants, who own other vessels, have been disposing of the same as scrap The defendants have been avoiding their regular ports of call in India and Europe and are in the process of closing their entire shipping operation. i) Saudi Luck is a vessel belonging to the defendants nominally owned and operated by the defendant No. 5. j) Saudi Luck arrived at the Port of Calcutta on or about the 8th July 1984 and was expected to complete discharge of her cargo and leave the Port on the 21st July 1984. k) The defendants have been making serious efforts to sell the said vessel Saudi Luck for scrap. l) The local agents of the defendants in Bombay, M/s Sai Shipping Co. Private Ltd., have caused the said vessel Saudi Luck to be arrested in a suit filed by them in the High Court of Bombay being Admiralty Suit No. 26 of 1984 for recovery of their dues. The arrest has been made on a warrant issued in the said suit on the 12th July 1984. m) Another vessel of the defendant Saudi A1 Jubail has been arrested in Singapore at the instance of her officers and crew for non-payment of wages. n) The defendants are carrying on business through their agent Capstan Shipping Enterprise Private Limited at Calcutta within the Original Jurisdiction of this Court. o) Cargo booking is accepted and freight is received by the vessels of the defendants, Customs clearance effected and other formalities are complied with and claims preferred against the defendants are entertained and settled at the office of the said agent at Calcutta which is a permanent office of the defendants for their shipping business. p) The plaintiff's demand in this suit was received by or on behalf of the defendants at the said office. q) The defendants have committed breach of their agreement by nonpayment of the dues of the plaintiff at Calcutta within the said jurisdiction at the said office.;