2011 (9) TMI 988 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interlocutory order of arrest of the vessel.
2. Dismissal of the admiralty action and/or rejection of the plaint.
3. Refund of security furnished in the suit.
4. Privity of contract and cause of action against the vessel.
5. Applicability of res judicata.

Summary:

1. Interlocutory Order of Arrest of the Vessel:
The plaintiff/respondent filed an application for the arrest of the vessel, which was granted by the learned Trial Judge on 4th July 2008. The vessel was released on 8th July 2008 upon furnishing security of Rs. 1 crore. The order of arrest was confirmed by the learned Trial Judge, and no appeal was preferred against this order.

2. Dismissal of the Admiralty Action and/or Rejection of the Plaint:
The appellant contended that the suit could not be maintained as there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the vessel. The learned Trial Judge refused to dismiss the suit or reject the plaint, stating that the plaintiff had disclosed a cause of action. The court noted that the plaintiff's allegations, including the defective cranes and the refusal to load cargo, constituted an actionable claim.

3. Refund of Security Furnished in the Suit:
The appellant sought a refund of the security furnished. The court did not grant this relief, as the security was furnished to release the vessel, and the suit was still pending.

4. Privity of Contract and Cause of Action Against the Vessel:
The appellant argued that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the vessel, and thus no cause of action. The court held that the plaintiff's allegations, including the representation by the Master of the vessel and the refusal to load cargo, created a privity and gave rise to a contractual obligation, thus constituting a maritime claim.

5. Applicability of Res Judicata:
The court held that the principle of res judicata applied, as the issue of whether the suit constituted a maritime claim was already decided in the interlocutory application. The court cited the Supreme Court decisions in AIR 1964 SC 993 and AIR 1960 SC 941, emphasizing that res judicata applies to different stages of the same suit.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the learned Trial Judge's decision, refusing to dismiss the suit or reject the plaint. The plaintiff was directed to furnish an indemnity bond of Rs. 97,43,552/- in favor of the defendant/appellant. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.