Chrisomar Corporation vs Mjr Steels Private Limited

1. The present appeal raises several interesting questions which arise in admiralty law. The vessel, M.V. Nikolaos-S, was owned by one Third Element Enterprises, a Cyprus company, and was flying the flag of the Republic of Cyprus. The plaintiff in the admiralty suit, who is the appellant before us, supplied bunkers and other necessaries to the said vessel at the port of Durban on terms and conditions agreed between the parties in 1 November, 1999. According to the plaintiff, the bunkers were received by the master of the vessel and services were rendered to the vessel as acknowledged by the master. The plaintiff raised invoices on 26.11.1999 for US$ 94,611.25 which have not yet been paid.

5. A written statement was filed on behalf of respondent no.1, MJR Steels, an Indian company who allegedly purchased the vessel from one Fairsteel Corporation, Singapore. Apparently, an agreement was entered into between Fairsteel and respondent no.1 on 21.1.2000. The written statement filed by respondent no. 1 alleged:

6. The learned single Judge by his judgment and order dated 28.4.2005 listed as many as seven issues and adverted to the fact that three witnesses were called on behalf of the plaintiffs, who not only deposed and were cross-examined, but also produced various documents. The defendants, however, did not produce any witness but tendered as their evidence six exhibits which were produced only through the plaintiff’s witnesses.

7. According to the learned single Judge, the order of 25.1.2000 made it clear that suit No.1 of 2000 was kept alive and remained alive on the date of the re-arrest, namely, 2.5.2000. All that was done by the order dated 2.5.2000 was to recall the order dated 25.1.2000, and when that was done, the original order of arrest was automatically revived. This being the case, it is clear that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover their dues. The learned single Judge further went on to hold that respondent no.1’s claim that ownership had changed and that they had become owners of the vessel in April, 2000, was not conclusively proved. The single Judge referred, among 8 other documents, to a suit filed by respondent no.1 against Fairsteel Corporation on 9.5.2000 in which respondent no.1 prayed for a decree for rescission of the agreement for sale dated 21.1.2000, as also for cancellation of the said agreement, and perpetual injunction restraining Fairsteel from claiming any money under the Letter of Credit furnished by respondent no.1. It recorded that the said suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 12.10.2004, and from the averments made in the said suit, it was clear that there was no concluded sale in favour of respondent no.1.

5. As to claims for necessaries.—The High Court of Admiralty shall have jurisdiction over any claim for necessaries supplied to any ship elsewhere than in the port to which the ship belongs, unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that at the time of the institution of the cause any owner or part- owner of the ship is domiciled in England or Wales:

42. Reading the agreement through the prism of a businessman’s eye, it is clear that all that the agreement does is to reinforce the original agreement by seeing that the payment under the said agreement is made. We, therefore, disagree with the view taken by the Division Bench that there is a novatio of the original agreement in the fact circumstance of the present case.

September 14, 2017.