[ad_1]
Orissa High Court
Alphard Maritime Ltd vs Ocean Jade (Imo on 29 April, 2025
Author: M.S. Sahoo
Bench: M.S. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ADMLS No.2 of 2025
ALPHARD MARITIME LTD. .... Plaintiff
Mr. D.P. Nanda, Sr. Advocate
instructed by Mr. Samvit Mohanty, Advocate
Mr. Anurag Pati, Advocate
Ms. Adwitiya Satpathy, Advocate
Ms. Jimisha Dalal, Advocate
Mr. Nitansha Nema, Advocate
Mr. Arjun Sharma, Advocate
Ms. Shivani Das, Advocate
-versus-
OCEAN JADE (IMO: .... Defendants
9660750) and another
Mr. Gautam Mukherji, Sr. Advocate
instructed by Mr. S.S. Mohanty, Advocate
Ms. Arusmita Acharya, Advocate
Ms. Ankita Mukherji, Advocate
Mr. Amlan Mishra, Advocate
Mr. S.S. Moharana, Advocate
Ms. Deepsha Dhal, Advocate
Mr. S.K. Padhi, Sr. Advocate along with
Mr. Ipsit Aurobindo Acharya, Advocate
Mr. Nitish Jain, Advocate
Mr. Atul Jain, Advocate
Ms. Juhi Mathur, Advocate
Mr. Piyush Panda, Advocate
(For intervenors)
Page 1 of 12
CORAM:
JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
ORDER
29.04.2025
(Hybrid Mode)
I.A. No.15 of 2025
Order No.
07. 1. The I.A. has been filed by the Applicant-Plaintiff
with the following prayer :
1. Allow the present application and permit the
Plaintiff to amend the Plaint in ADMLS No. 2 of
2025 in terms of the draft Amended Plaint as at
Schedule I;
2. Pass such other and further reliefs that may
be deemed fit and proper in the interest of the
justice.
2. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mukherji refers to
paragraph-35 of the plaint to submit that it has been
stated therein that the plaintiff has paid a fixed Court
fees of INR [] and hence, the present suit is sufficiently
stamped. He then draws attention of the Court to the
paragraph captioned as „prayer‟ of the plaint “i. This
Hon‟ble Court be pleased to pass an Order and Decree
in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants
Vessels jointly and/or severally, her owner, and all
persons interested in her, to pay the Plaintiff a sum of
Page 2 of 12
US$ 49,268,902.45 (INR 428,76,87,464.30) along withapplicable interest per annum from the date of filing of
the suit till the date of the decree and applicable
interest from the date of the decree till
payment/realization” to submit that the prayer is for a
money decree for a sum of ₹428,76,87,464.30 along
with applicable interest per annum. It is further
submitted that the said amount is arrived at as the
value of 9 ships which form part of the alleged
settlement agreement.
3. The learned Senior Counsel then refers to
paragraph-11 of I.A. No.7 of 2025 which contains the
following averments/statements.
“11. In the circumstances aforesaid, in all
probability, this Hon’ble Court would not be
hearing the captioned proceedings
substantively, and they are likely to be stayed
and/or transferred to another High Court. It
would be manifestly unjust to compel the
Plaintiff to pay court fees of approximately INR
85,00,000 in relation to a proceeding which will
not be substantively heard by this Hon’ble
Court.”
and it is submitted that the Stamp Report made on
18.03.2025 by the Registry of this Court at
Page 3 of 12
paragraph-3 indicates “Rs. 12,86,31,885/- is payable,
Rs. 75,012/- paid. Deficit court fee of Rs.12,85,56,873/-
not paid.”
The learned Senior Counsel refers to the
paragraph captioned as „prayer‟ in the I.A. No.7 of
2025 that contains the prayer :
“that the plaintiff be granted additional time
and the question of the payment of the of the
remaining court fees be kept open till the transfer
petition that would be filed by the plaintiff under
Section 15 of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and
Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 is
finally decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
and the arbitration proceedings are concluded.”
3. The learned Senior Counsel referring to the order
passed by this Court dated 19.03.2025 in I.A. No.7 of
2025 submits that the discretion of this Court was
invoked by the plaintiff before the coordinate Bench
taking up the suit earlier, by stating that Rs.75,000/-
has been paid as court fee and the rest of the amount
shall be paid as would be directed by the Court by
enlarging the time for payment. Referring to the
pleadings in the I.A. No.7 of 2025 disposed of by earlier
order dated 19.03.2025, he submits that the prayers
Page 4 of 12
made in the said I.A. or any part of the plaint do not
dispute the amount of court fee quantified to be
payable by the plaintiff; paragraph-4 of the order dated
19.03.2025 is very clear to the extent that on
submission of the plaintiff Court granted four weeks
time for payment of the admitted/deficit court fee. Mr.
Mukherji also draws attention to the part of the order
dated 19.03.2025 that provides “the Registry shall
report with regard to its filing and sufficiency before the
next date.”
4. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel as
the events have unfolded, thereafter the defendants
filed the application bearing I.A. No.8 of 2025 on
24.03.2025 for vacation of the order of arrest dated
19.03.2025 passed in I.A. No.6 of 2025 in view of the
clear mandate of the order as contained in I.A. No.7 of
2025 dated 19.03.2025. The plaintiffs consistently
represented before this Court in the subsequent
proceedings that they want to pay the court fees within
the time fixed as directed by this Court by order dated
19.03.2025. The court fees was not paid by the time
Page 5 of 12
extended/granted by this Court i.e. 16.04.2025 and
thereafter application : I.A. No. 11 of 2025 was filed by
the defendant on 08.04.2025 in terms of Order 7, Rule
11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for rejection of
the plaint.
5. It is submitted no application for extension of
time for payment of deficit court fees has been filed by
the plaintiffs by the extended date i.e. 16.04.2025 and
even till today, no application for extension of time has
been filed. It is submitted that the I.A. No.16 of 2025
filed by the plaintiffs for modification of order dated
19.03.2025 passed in I.A. No.7 of 2025 is
misconceived, hit by res judicata and otherwise not
maintainable in view of the consistent stand of the
plaintiff to pay the deficit court fees within the time
fixed by the Court. Further, in the alternative it is
submitted that no case is made out for exercise of
discretion for extension of time to deposit the court
fees as directed earlier by this Court. It is submitted
that filing of I.A. No.15 of 2025 is abuse of the process
of the Court inasmuch as the prayer for amendment is
Page 6 of 12
effectively is to change the nature and character of the
suit. If such amendment is to be allowed that would
result in the suit no more remaining an admiralty suit.
At best the purpose for filing of this I.A. is for delaying
or not paying the court fees as determined by the
Registry of the Court in terms of the Court Fees Act
and Rules. The time granted by the Court having
expired further indulgence would amount encouraging
the abuse of process of Court.
6. The learned Senior Counsel refers to the transfer
application referred to by the plaintiff in I.A.
No.86277/2025 filed before the Supreme Court. On
07.04.2025 the Supreme Court has dismissed the
Transfer Petition (s) (Civil) Nos.906-907/2025 filed by
the plaintiff. Therefore, it is submitted the plea of
extension of time till consideration and the decision of
the transfer petition no more survives. It is submitted
that on the face of it the value of the vessels remaining
same the court fees that would be applicable and
determined on the said value cannot be changed at the
instance of the plaintiff in any manner. More so, when
Page 7 of 12
the value has been given by the plaintiff themselves to
be urged before this Court that forms basis of their
claim and calculation of the court fee payable. It is
submitted that the defendant‟s prayer would be that
the order dated 19.03.2025 directing arrest of the
vessels of the defendants could not have continued
after the date of extension of time to pay the court fees
expired on 16.04.2025 as the suit did not survive to be
adjudicated. After filing of the I.A. No.11 of 2025 at the
instance of the defendants for modification of the
interim order of arrest should not continue beyond
today and the plaint is liable to be rejected in terms of
the O.7, R.11 of the CPC.
7. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that
when the plaint or the suit does not survive in view of
the order dated 19.03.2025 in I.A. No.6 of 2025 which
also itself forms part of the order passed in I.A. No.7 of
2025, there is no question of bringing any amendment
to the pleadings of the suit.
The learned Senior Counsel seeks leave to make
further submissions regarding the conditions that can
Page 8 of 12
be imposed as far as arrest of the vessel is concerned
during pendency of the I.A. No.11 of 2025.
Leave granted.
8. Mr. Nanda, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the plaintiff-petitioner in I.A. No. 15 of 2025 and
opposite party in the I.A. No.11 of 2025 filed by the
defendants submits that Section 5 of the Admiralty
(Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act,
2017 refers to arrest of vessel in rem. The said
provision is quoted herein.
“5. Arrest of vessel in rem. – (1) The High
Court may order arrest of any vessel which is
within its jurisdiction for the purpose of
providing security against a maritime claim
which is the subject of an admiralty
proceeding, where the Court has reason to
believe that –
(a) the person who owned the vessel at the
time when the maritime claim arose is liable for
the claim and is the owner of the vessel when
the arrest is effected; or
(b) the demise charterer of the vessel at the
time when the maritime claim arose is liable for
the claim and is the demise charterer or the
owner of the vessel when the arrest is effected;
or
(c) the claim is based on a mortgage or a
charge of the similar nature on the vessel; or
(d) the claim relates to the ownership or
possession of the vessel; orPage 9 of 12
(e) the claim is against the owner, demise
charterer, manager or operator of the vessel
and is secured by a maritime lien as provided
in section 9.
(2) The High Court may also order arrest of any
other vessel for the purpose of providing
security against a maritime claim, in lieu of the
vessel against which a maritime claim has
been made under this Act, subject to the
provisions of sub-section (1):
Provided that no vessel shall be arrested under
this sub-section in respect of a maritime claim
under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 4.
4. Maritime Claim-(1) The High Court may
exercise jurisdiction to hear and determine any
question on a maritime claim, against any
vessel, arising out of any xxx xxx (r) dispute
arising out of a contract for the sale of the
vessel.”
9. The learned Senior Counsel elaborates that the
prayer for amendment of the plaint in the suit is for
indemnification and for securing the maritime claim. It
is a suit in rem as defined under the statute. The
learned Senior Counsel refers to I.A. No.15 of 2025
filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the claim. He
submits that such I.A. is maintainable under Section
12 of the Act, 2017 and Rule 3 of the Orissa High
Court Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of
Maritime Claims) Rules, 2020. He refers to the decision
Page 10 of 12
rendered by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in A. Nawab
John and others v. V.N. Subramaniyam reported in
[2012] 6 S.C.R. 369 decided on 3rd July, 2012 to
contend that the Court has power to exercise the
jurisdiction under Section 149 of the CPC for granting
further time for deposit of the deficit court fees. It is
submitted that though the defendants heavily rely on
A. Nawab John(supra) regarding exercise of Court‟s
power and discretion as prescribed under O.7, R.11 for
rejection of the plaint there is also a scope for the
plaintiff to seek the discretion of the Court for
extension of time.
10. Regarding the prayer made in the petition for
amendment (I.A. No.15 of 2025) it is submitted by the
learned Senior Counsel that the plaintiff relies on the
decision of the High Court of Hyderabad in Umrao
Devi Bantia and others vrs. Union of India and
others decided on 09.06.2015 : 2015 SCC OnLine
Hyd 694: (2015) 5 ALT 11, where it is held that the
Court has power to allow the prayer of the plaintiff
even if in effect it amounts to reduction of the quantum
Page 11 of 12
of claim resulting in reduction in court fee calculated
thereupon supporting the prayer for amendment he
submits that the amendment is necessitated in view of
the pendency of the admiralty suit at Gujarat and due
to pendency of the arbitration proceeding initiated at
Singapore at the instance of the plaintiff. It is
submitted that in view of Section 5 of the Act, 2017, for
the purpose of providing security against maritime
claim, pending before Gujarat High Court and in the
arbitration proceeding at Singapore in lieu of the
vessels now within the jurisdiction of this Court the
amendment needs to be allowed. Such proposed
amendment does not change the nature and character
of the suit.
11. As paucity of time intervenes, on consent, for
further hearing, on consent list tomorrow (30.04.2025).
The matter shall retain its position in the cause list.
(M.S. Sahoo)
Signature Not Verified Judge
Digitally Signed
Signed by: RADHARANI JENA
Reason: Authentication
RJ /dutta
Location: OHC
Date: 30-Apr-2025 15:56:29
Page 12 of 12
[ad_2]
Source link