Sunday, 17, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Tarsons Products Limited vs The Owners And Parties Interested In The ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 2361 Cal/2

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 2361 Cal/2
Judgement Date : 2 September, 2025

Calcutta High Court

Tarsons Products Limited vs The Owners And Parties Interested In The ... on 2 September, 2025

Author: Arindam Mukherjee
Bench: Arindam Mukherjee
OCD-3
                                 ORDER SHEET


                            IA No.GA-COM/2/2025
                                        IN
                            AS-COM/1/2025
                    IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                        ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION
                         (COMMERCIAL DIVISION)
                             ORIGINAL SIDE


                 TARSONS PRODUCTS LIMITED
                             VS.
   THE OWNERS AND PARTIES INTERESTED IN THE VESSEL MV SOL
              PROGRESS (IMO NO.9322865) & ORS.


BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE

Date: 2nd September, 2025.

Mr. Swatarup Banerjee, Mr. Sourav Kr. Mukherjee, Mr. Rohit Mukherjee, Mr. Satyaki Mitra, Ms. Swastika Sengupta, Advocates for defendant no.2.

Mr. Krishnaraj Thaker, Sr. Adv.(VC), Ms. Sneha Singhania, Ms. Shabana Khatun, Advocates for the plaintiff.

Mr. Souvik Kundu, Adv. for defendant no.1.

The Court : Affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the plaintiff to

this demurer application of the defendant no.2 is taken on record.

The defendant no.2 says that its name should be expunged from the

array of defendants in the above Admiralty suit as the plaintiff has no cause

of action as against the said defendant and the plaint also discloses none on

a meaningful reading of the plaint. It is further submitted by the said

defendant that the Court assumes admiralty jurisdiction only when a vessel

is within its territorial water subject to there being a maritime claim in

favour of the plaintiff. In the instant case, according to the defendant no.2,

neither from the statements made in the plaint or from the documents

annexed thereto it will appear that the defendant no.2 is the owner of the

vessel. The defendant no.2 is not a bareboat charterer or a Manager or a

demise charterer of the vessel. There is no privity of contract between the

defendant no.2 and the plaintiff. Neither the plaint speaks about any

contract nor such fact is apparent from the documents disclosed by the

plaintiff. It is also submitted that since the suit has been filed in the

Commercial Division, all documents in the possession and custody of the

plaintiff were to be annexed with the plaint. There is also no maritime claim

against the said defendant or appears from the plaint and the documents

annexed thereto.

The document referred to in paragraph 10 of the plaint wherein the

name of the defendant no.2 figures for the first time will clearly show that

such document was not issued by the defendant no.2 in favour of the

plaintiff. Thus, going by the provision of Sections 2, 3 and 5 of the

Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017

[hereinafter referred to as 'the 2017 Act'] with reference to the statements

made in the plaint and the documents disclosed, the plaintiff has no cause

of action as against the defendant no.2 to file and maintain an admiralty

suit against the said defendant. The name of the defendant no.2, therefore,

should be expunged from the array of defendants primarily on the ground

that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant

no.2, there is no maritime claim in favour of the plaintiff as against the

defendant no.2 and the admiralty jurisdiction is not attracted in the facts as

alleged in the plaint.

The defendant no.2 has relied upon a judgment reported in 1993

Supp. (2) SCC 433 (M. V. Elisabeth And Others Vs. Harwan Investment And

Trading Pvt. Ltd., Hanoekar House, Swatontapeth, Vasco-De-Gama, Goa) in

support of its contention. Relying upon paragraph 82 of the said judgment

the defendant no.2 says that the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court has not

been attracted in the instant case as against the defendant no.2.

The matter is adjourned and shall appear on 16th September, 2025.

(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.)

pa

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter