9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (12) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... smissing a Letters Patent Appeal on the ground that the appellant could not make any grievance about the order of the learned Single Judge impugned before the Division Bench in view of certain orders of Single Judges which had become final and binding. The order of the learned Single Judge allowed the oral application of respondents 1-7 (plaintiffs) to dismiss the suit against the appellants (four ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were also imposed upon the Captain and various crew members, including the plaintiffs. On 14th June 1991 an order was taken in the Admiralty suit which stated that as the ship was taking in water and likely to sink it was agreed by the plaintiffs, the second defendant, the Bombay Port Trust, the Customs authorities and the purchaser of the vessel, which had been ordered to be sold under the author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d be handed over to them. This prayer of the Customs authorities was rejected on 3rd April 1992 having regard to the earlier order of 14th June 1991. It may also be mentioned that the amount of the claim in the suit was amended and increased and that the Customs authorities had filed no affidavit to oppose the same. 5. Now, it was recognised that the Customs authorities had a claim against the v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the suit was otherwise undefended. 6. Accordingly, we are of the view that the impugned order of the Division Bench and of the learned single Judge deleting the Customs authorities (the 4th defendant) from the suit and passing an ex parte decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against the first and the second defendants should be set aside. The plaintiffs shall be at liberty to make an applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
