Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 2361 Cal/2
Judgement Date : 2 September, 2025
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
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!