*1* chs.1421.11.adms.24.11.951.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1421 OF 2011 IN ADMIRALTY SUIT NO.24 OF 2011 Sparebanken Sogn Og Fjordane. ..Plaintiffs -Versus- m.v. Bos Angler and another. ..Defendants .......... Mr.Atul Rajadhyaksha, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.Zamir P. Bhambda i/b Bimal Rajashekhar, for the Plaintiffs. Mr.V.K.Ramabhadran a/w Mr.Sumit Jose, for the Intervener. Mr.Rahul Narichania a/w A. Majumdar i/b Bose & Mitra, for the Plaintiffs in ADMSL/1637/2011. Mr.A.M.Vernekar, for the Plaintiffs in ADMSL-1759/2011, 1430/2011 and 1815/2011. Mr.A.M.Qazi, Deputy Sheriff, present in person. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 13th September, 2011. P.C.: 1 This Chamber Summons is moved by the Plaintiffs in the above suit seeking the following reliefs:- “(a) That leave be granted to Plaintiff (as the mortgagee of Defendant No.1 Vessel) and/or its nominee by this Hon’ble Court to bid for Defendant No.1 Vessel, with the amount of such bid to be not less than NOK 181,783,590 (Norwegian Kroner One Hundred and Eighty One Million Seven Hundred and Eighty Three Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Only) equivalent to USD 33,051,562 (United States Dollars Thirty Three Million Fifty One Thousand Five Hundred and Sixty Two only), being the amount that is, as of date, the Plaintiff’s claim in the suit. (b) That the Sheriff of Mumbai be directed to accept any bid *2* chs.1421.11.adms.24.11.951.sxw made by the Plaintiff mortgagee bank or its designated nominee and place the same before the Hon’ble Court in a sealed cover as per order dated 3rd August 2011 along with the other bids.” 2 In the affidavit in support, it has been pointed out that on 03.08.2011 this Court was pleased to pass an order for auction sale of the Defendant No.1 Vessel. The Sheriff was directed to advertise the sale, collect the bids and place the same before this Court for confirmation. 3 It is stated that as on date of filing of the suit, the claim of the Plaintiffs is for an amount of NOK 176,500,000 which is equivalent to Rs. 145,35,39,214/-. It is submitted that the Plaintiff, being the registered first priority mortgagee bank, by itself or through a designated nominee, is entitled to bid for the Defendant No.1 Vessel at auction sale. It is submitted that the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure contemplate leave for making a bid and such leave is granted by the Court as an administrative ministerial act. It is submitted that no prejudice would be caused to any other parties and particularly arresting parties. 4 Mr.Rajadhyaksha, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of this Chamber Summons, on taking instructions, makes a statement that the Plaintiffs' claim in the suit being crystallized by the Plaintiffs themselves and they seeking a decree in that sum, therefore, in no case they shall place a bid lower than the sum for which they seek a decree. Further, it is for the Court to confirm the bid. Therefore, there cannot be any apprehension that the Vessel is being sold at a lower price. Even if the reserve price is determined at Rs.250 crores, the Plaintiffs will not prejudice anybody rather they will be happy if the Vessel is sold at reserve price or fetches more than that. In such circumstances by relying *3* chs.1421.11.adms.24.11.951.sxw upon the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules and the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in AIR 1969 A.P. 196 (Puttaparatti Atchamma and another v/s T.Bayanna and another), he submits that leave be granted as prayed for. 5 On the other hand, the request is opposed by Mr.Rambhadran and Mr.Narichania and both of them pointed out that the Court has already determined the reserve price at Rs.250 crores and if that is the price at which the Court has directed that the bids be invited and would be considered, then, the grant of such leave would necessarily mean that the Plaintiffs' claim and the bid being lower in value, the auction sale may not be free and fair. Grant of leave would be utilized as an instrument so as to influence the sale of the Vessel. Ultimately, possibility of the Plaintiffs' stealing march over auction purchasers and/or creating a cartel, is not ruled out. Mr.Rambhadran submits that the rules on which reliance is placed would have no application because the Vessel is movable property and all the rules and particularly Order XXI Rule 72-A of the Code of Civil Procedure which has been pressed into service deals with the sale of immovable property. In these circumstances, this Chamber Summons in any event is not maintainable and hence, the same should be dismissed. 6 Mr.Narichania supported and adopted the submissions of Mr.Rambhadran and pointed out that the Court may not permit the Plaintiffs to bid because the Plaintiffs are yet to obtain a decree. The suit is still pending. If the Plaintiffs are allowed to place their bid even before they get a decree and at the sum mentioned in the prayer clause of the Chamber Summons, that would adversely affect the prospect of the Vessel fetching atleast reserve price. For all these reasons, the Chamber Summons be dismissed. *4* chs.1421.11.adms.24.11.951.sxw 7 On perusal of the Chamber Summons, it is apparent that the same has been moved subsequent to the order dated 03.08.2011. This Court on 03.08.2011 heard all Advocates concerned including the present Plaintiffs. After hearing them, the Court perused the valuation report and fixed the reserve price so also the earnest money deposit. The Court directed the separate valuation of the movables comprising of sesmic movable equipments which are not attached to the Vessel. The Court also issued directions for advertising the sale. Pertinently, the Plaintiffs had not sought any leave at that stage and assuming that there was no application made in that behalf and it could have been filed subsequently, yet, in the peculiar facts of this case and after coming to know about the reserve price, this Chamber Summons is filed to seek leave. Reliance is placed on certain rules of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules and pertaining to the admiralty practice. The Court has framed these rules enabling it to act in admiralty and vice admiralty jurisdiction. It is clear from perusal of these rules that this Court can exercise the admiralty jurisdiction in the cases brought before it under the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890 and the rules have been framed so as to enable this Court to take cognizance of the matters particularly within its jurisdiction. The rules set out procedural aspects and enabling the Court to arrest and sale a Vessel. Reliance that is placed on rules and particularly Rule 966 is on the basis that the rules and practice of the Court in the matter of suits and proceedings on the Original Side shall, if not inconsistent with the rules, apply to the suits and proceedings on the Admiralty Side of this Court. It is then contended that rule 544 enables the office of the Commissioner to take accounts to conduct the sale and this rule would be attracted as there is nothing inconsistent in the rules pertaining to the admiralty jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Andhra *5* chs.1421.11.adms.24.11.951.sxw Pradesh High Court delivered by the Division Bench and reported in AIR 1969 AP 196 (supra). Pertinently, the provision of CPC and the Rule in the O.S. Rules which are relied upon are in Execution and Sale at that stage. 8 To my mind, any larger controversy need not be decided in the facts of this case. Once I am of the opinion that the suit filed by the Plaintiffs is pending and in the pending suit, leave is sought to put in a bid at the auction sale of the subject Vessel which exercise might influence the other auction purchasers and would not result in fetching the maximum price or atleast a competitive price at auction of the subject Vessel, then, such exercise cannot be permitted. It has been pointed out by those opposing this Chamber Summons that apart from the present proceedings, there are six claimants against the Defendant No.1 Vessel and their claims are also substantial. They have pointed out that the Chamber Summons is an attempt to curtail the demand of other Claimants and in the garb of placing the bid for the amount of claim in the suit, an attempt is made to reduce the reserve price, then, all the more, considering their stand taken and substantiated on affidavit, this Chamber Summons cannot be granted. There is substance in the objections of Mr.Rambhadran and Mr.Narichania that the claim in the suit is yet to be crystallized and the permission to the Plaintiffs to put any bid would adversely affect the outcome of the auction sale. In the result, the Chamber Summons is dismissed. No costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)