JAISU SHIPPING COMPANY PRIVETE LIMITED Vs. M V ASEAN JADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred from the judgment and order dated 27.2.2002 of the learned single Judge in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.33 of 2002 in Admiralty Suit No.10 of 2000, whereby, the application of the respondent herein was allowed and the appellant herein (the original plaintiff) was ordered to pay Rs.2,70,000.00 per day for detention of the vessel for eight days. By consent and at the request of the learned counsel, the appeal was taken up for final hearing at the admission stage. The appellant also filed an appeal from the earlier order dated 30.6.2000 vacating the order of the vessel's arrest in which the reasons were to be given afterwards. It was stated at the Bar that the impugned judgment containing the reasons and final order being challenged in this appeal on all the available grounds, that former appeal lying in the Registry under office-objections since August 2000 as Letters Patent Appeal (Stamp) No.1369 of 2000 as also O.J.Appeal (Stamp) No.1369 of 2000 would not survive and shall no more be required to be registered.

(2.) It must be noted at the outset that the original Admiralty Suit No.10 of 2000 is pending and the opponent herein was not a party to that suit. However, on the allegations and premises that the opponent herein, i.e. the ship M.V.ASEAN JADE, was a sister-ship of the vessel M.V. ASEAN CRYSTAL (also known as ASEAN MARINER), whose owners were the defendants in the suit, and that the former ship was likely to sail out of the Port of Kandla on 26.7.2000, an application being Miscellaneous Civil Application No.24 of 2000, was filed in Admiralty Suit No.10 of 2000 and, by the order dated 23.6.2000, an ex parte order for arrest of the former ship was obtained. The admiralty suit appears to have been filed on 8.6.2000 and, at the time of initial hearing on 19.6.2000 when notice returnable on 3.7.2000 was ordered to be issued, amendment was also granted so as to increase the amount of claim from US $ 8,79,190.86 to US $ 15,17,770 along with interest @ 18% as also an amount of Rs.30,000.00 per day by way of damages from the date of the suit till the disposal of the suit. It also appears from the record that the appellant herein had filed another application being Miscellaneous Civil Application No.23 of 2000 with the prayers to order the defendants in the suit to transfer the ASEAN CRYSTAL or any other vessels or other properties or to give bank security for the suit-claim and that application was never pressed for any order although notice was also issued therein and made returnable on 3.7.2000. Thus, in short, after increasing the amount of claim by way of amendment and even during the pendency of an application for securing the further claim, (the owner of ASEAN CRYSTAL having already provided the security by a Letter of Indemnity to the extent of US $ 1.2 million against the original claim of US $ 8,29,190.86) the application for arrest of M.V. ASEAN JADE was made and an ex parte order of arrest was obtained on 23.6.2000 which was admittedly served only on 27.6.2000 when M.V. ASEAN JADE was about to sail. Being aggrieved by the order of arrest, the respondents herein filed Miscellaneous Civil Application No.33 of 2000 in which the impugned judgment was delivered after filing of affidavits and counter-affidavits of the parties and written and oral arguments spread over a period of about one-and-half years. The order of arrest was, however, vacated earlier on 30.6.2000 and the hearing that ensued related to the amount of damages to be awarded in view of allegedly unlawful arrest of the ship M.V. ASEAN JADE.

(3.) Assailing the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge, the learned senior counsel Mr.D.D.Vyas, appearing for the appellant, submitted that the damages could have been awarded only after leading of evidence and enquiry into the proper amount of damages and such enquiry could not have been carried out in a summary manner as was done by the learned single Judge. He also submitted that the amount of damages claimed by the respondent was merely based upon ipse dixit of the interested party and could not have been the basis in absence of any legal evidence which could have been and ought to have been led. He also submitted that the ship ASEAN JADE was in any case not bound to sail on 27.6.2000 and its sailing might have been delayed for any other reason. He also made a grievance that the contentions and submissions of the appellant were not fully appreciated and dealt with by the learned single Judge while granting the prayer for damages, as also in vacating the order of arrest made in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.24 of 2000 referred hereinabove.