Kerala High Court
Judgment vs Owners And Parties Interested In ... on 11 January, 2021
IN THE EIGE COITRT OF KERiFJ.A AT ERNAICIILAI.{
PREgETEf
TEE EOLIOUREBLE MR. dn,STICE DT\TA}I RA!{ACEA}IDRA!{
!,CINDAy, THE l1TH DAy OF JAr{UARY 2O2L / 2LTg, POUSEA, L942
A&1.S..No.6 Or 2ALg
PLAIIiITIFFS:
1 S.I,A?IRENCE
AGED 35 YTARS
s/o sEsArYAlr,RESrDING AT DOOR NO.2d-
1 I, MtttLOORTEttRAI, AI{BIYAI.I- 3, TEENGAPATTAI{AM POST -
629L7 3, VILAVAI{CODE TALUK, KN{:rAKU}{ARI DISTRICT .
2 S.VTOI,ET !{ARY
AGED 39 Yg*.D.g
r[/o SAflAYA RjL.t,RESrDrNG AT DOOR NO.24-
18 ,MttLLORrEttRAr ,AIIBTYAI{-3 ,
TEAilTGAPATTaNAil{ POST 6291,7 3,VILAVAIiICODE TAtm(,
KA,DT:rA,!GEA,RI DTSTRTCT, REPRESEDI'IIED BY TEEIR PS{ER OF
ATTOR}IEI EOI,DER. S .I,A!{RENCE,
3 S. SAEAYA SAI{JAY DEARSAI{
EGED 16 YE.ARS
s/o SAEAYA RA.T,RESTDTNG AT DOOR NO.24-
18 ,MIILLORTEIIRAI ,AI{BIYAI\I-3 ,
TEAITGAPATTaIIAI{ POST 629L7 3,VILAVAIICODE TALITK,
KAr{YAKU}nRr DTSTRTCT,REPRESENTED By EEErR pOtfER OF
ATTOR}iIEY EOI,DER, S . I,ATIRENCE .
ASEf'IN SATITSAN
LrlEn 1/l lrEaErA
s/o sAg.ayA RjarT,REsrDrNe AT DooR No.24-18,
MULLORTEURET , AITIBTYAN-3 ,
TEA!{GAPATTAIIAI4 POSI 629L73, VTLAVA}{CODE tAI,ttK,
KAt[vArgnaRr DrsTRrcT / REPRESEIIEED BY TgErR POWER OF
ATTORNEY EOLDER. S.I,AT{RENCE.
BY ADVS.
sRr .v. J.ldaTEElr (sn. I
SRI.ADARSE T''ATHE!il
SRI . DIL.'ITE K. }BIiIOEAR
STfr. DE.NITA tr }ffiI,AR
DEFENDA}ITS:
I ST$ERS AND PARTIES INTERESESD IN EgE vEgSEI' }4I' gCI
}4IIMBAI
(rMo 9419539) Al{D HER OI{NERS AND /OR I{AI-TAGERS Al{D /On
Adml. S. .No.6 OF 2018
2
AI,I, OTHER PERSONS CONCERNED IIWTERESTED
}IASTER A}ID
IN HER, A INDIA}I FI,AG VESSEL, TOGETEER IIITE EER
ffItLL,
?ACICLE, E!{GrtqBs, GEiARg, PIrAtilE, MAgHrlqgRf ,
+P.TICIES, Tgr!+€9, .I.PP}.P.EL, EQ'JTP}'ED*IS , gEOPgg -rlID
OTHER PARAPHERNAIIA OD{ BOARD, AT PRESEIIE LYING I N
THE PORT AIID EARBOI'R OF COCBIN PORT IN II{DIAI{
TERRITORIAL ITATERS AI{D REPRESET{TTED BY gER I,TASTERS.
TEE DEPIEY CONSERVATOR,
cocHrN poRT TRusr, w/rsr,AllD, cocErN-682003.
BY SRT.JOY TEATTTT. rrTOOP, SC
TgIS ADMIRAI,ITY SUIE EAVI}TC BEEN FIN*I,LY SE}RD ON
LL.OL,2O2L, THE COIIRT O}I TET SA}4E DAY DE"LIVERED TEE FOIJOWI}IG:
Adml. S. .No.5 OF 2018
JUDGMENT
When this Suit was called today, the learned counsel for the
parties are ad idem that the disputes between their clients have
been settled under the aegis of the Ernakulam Mediation Centre,
Ernakulam. They pointed out that a Memorandum ofjoint settlement
has also been placed on record.
2. I have examined the Memorandum referred above and
notice that it has been signed by the parties, as also by their learned
counsel; and therefore, see no reason why it cannot be accepted.
In the afore circumstances, accepting the joint settlement
between the parties, I close this suit without any further orders;
thus directing the parties to act implicitly in terms of the said
settlement.
Needless to say, since the matter has been settled through
Mediation, the plaintiff will not be liable to make payment of the
Court Fee, even though they were allowed to sue as indigent, going
by the mandate of Section 69 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits
Valuation Act, 1959.
SD/.
DEVAN n UWACHANDRAN
rp JUDGE
o
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF
KERALAAT ERNAKULAM
(Admiralty Jurisdiction)
Admiralty Suit No. 6 of 2018
S.Lawrence and others Plaintiff
Vs.
Owners and Parties Interested in the Defendants
Vessel MV SCI MUMBAI (IMO 9419539)
and Another
O REPoRT SUBMITTED BYTHE MEDIAToR
ADV. RAZIYA P.A.
Mediated, matter is settled.
Terms and conditions are attached herewith.
Dated this the 26h day of November,2020..
: Raziya P.A.
o
Ernakulam Mediation Centre
BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Admiralty Suit No. 6 of 2O1g
S. Lawrence & Ors Plaintiffs
-Vs-
Owners and Parties Interested in the
Vessel MV SCI MUMBAI (IMO 9419539)
& Anr Defendants
o
JOINT SETTLEMENT MEMO SUBMITTED BY THE PLAINTIF'FS AND
DEF'ENDANT No.l
VIPIN P.VARGHESE
V.J MATHEW & CO
COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
&
JOY THATTIL ITTOOP
CALLIDUS LEGAL
COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT NO.l
o
BEFORE THE HON'BLT HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNNTULAM
(Admiralty Jurisdlctionf
Admiralty Suit No. 6 of 2018
S. Lawrence & Ors Plaintiffs
-Vs-
Owners and Parties Interested in the
Vessel MV SCI MUMBAI ( IMO 9419539)
& Anr Defendants
JOINT SETTLEMENT MEMO SUBMITTTD BY THE PLAINTIFFS AITD
o DEFENDANT No..l
1. The above suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs claiming compensation from
Defendant No.1 on account of the death of sri. sahayarqj, s/o Door No.g5,
Puthalam Village, Agastheewaram Taluk, Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu due to the
alleged incident of collision between the vessel MT Desh Shakti and the fishing boat
"Oceanic".
2. The Plaintiffs are the brother-in-law and legal heirs respectively of the said
deceased Sri. Sahayaraj.
3. The Parties, after discussions and deliberations have decided to settle the
suit claim of the Plaintiffs against the Defendant No.l, out of court, with the
Plaintiffs accepting adequate monetar5r compensation to their complete satisfaction
from the Defendant No.1 towards the full and frnal satisfaction of all their claims
in respect of the above suit and. incident.
4' The settlement reached between the parties is purely on humanitarian
grounds and arising out of sympathy towards the present conditions of the plaintiff
sand without admitting to any liability as to the incident or quantum as alleged in
the above suit. Further, the Plaintiffs hereby agrees that they have received the ex-
gratia compensation from the Defendant No.1 as full and final setflement towards
any and all past, present and future claims in respect of the subject matter.
€ ,.oy1?g 6b, ,.AO|WiolP 9 ^oato*Bu;7
9- --r"Bg rV
Kerala State Mediation and Conciliation
Cen$e
Hig,h
ffi
9gr1gl ryer.aa.\J
Kochi - 682031
a
5. Further, the 2"d Plaintiff agrees that she will withdraw the Writ petition filed
by her before the Honble High Court of Kerala i.e W.P ( C ) No. 2752T of 2018 and
would take steps for the early withdrawal of the same.
5. In the above circumstances, the Plaintiffs hereby withdraws the above suit
unconditionally making clear that their claim against the Defendant No.1 stands
fully satisfied and discharged and that they shall not have any claim whatsoever
against the Defendant No. t hereafter in connection with the subject matter of the
suit.
6. The Plaintiffs hereby submits that they have no objection in the Honble
Court releasing the security furnished by the Defendant No.1 back to them.
Dated this the l"t day of October 2OL9.
9,alrTorp?
o 4,
J.'_(4<244-.,n,
PLAINTIFF No.1 DEFENDANT No.1
e .&or+rUBq qp F,f,qniirq+tqtr{fufr.
SHlru CORFORAI|il C ril UD
For T-HE
PLAINTIFF No.2
l$fto9-
t(rrd
c.R.kffiffirp.v.
9' oA or$trg \yf{ ffiqikq/cm€rcr|ryPts)
PLAINTIFF No.3
9 'aporc.42er,pfP
PLAIN1IFF No.4
o
NSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT No.l
//r?*-7 )/"b//*--- Gv . q.\no? l4'), 9'lhe8 '
Kerala Staie Mediaticn and Conciliation Centre
t:.'.;;;ill;:'<[email protected]
