PETROMARINE PRODUCTS LTD. versus OCEAN MARINE SERVICES COMPANY LTD. & ORS.
[2015] 4 S.C.R. 1086, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Facts
A 
B 
c 
[2015] 4 S.C.R. 1086 
PETROMARINE PRODUCTS LTD. 
v. 
OCEAN MARINE SERVICES COMPANY LTD. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.6156 Of 2005) 
FEBRUARY 17, 2015 
[M.Y. EQBAL AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
Merchant Shipping Act, 1958: 
s. 3(15) - Admiralty jurisdiction - Suit for recovery -
Arrest of vessel -
Vessel berthed at Madras harbor -
Jurisdiction of High Court - Held: When the vessel is 
berthed at the Madras harbor, the Madras High Court alone 
D has jurisdiction to entertain any claim against the subject 
vessel as per provisions of s. 3(15) - On facts, arrest of 
vessel by the Madras High Court being the first arrest, the 
vessel and the sale proceeds are custodial legis of the said 
court and no proceedings in Bombay High Court can be 
E maintained subsequently without leave of the Madras High 
Court. 
s. 3(15) - Madras High Court On'gina/ Side Rules -
Or. XU/ r. 3 & 11 -Admiralty jurisdiction -Arrest of vessal 
F - Issue pertaining to suit for recovery and arrest of vessa/ 
and payment to be made to various creditors, wherein one 
of the creditor moving High Court of Bombay and other 
creditors moving High Court of Madras, where the vessal 
was stationed - Attachment order passed and transfer of 
G decree -
High Court of Madras holding that the 
disbursements be made of the sale proceeds received by 
sale of the ship-motor vessel - Division Bench upheld the 
said order - Interference with - Held: Not called for - In a 
H 
1086
PETROMARINE PRODUCTS LTD. v. OCEAN 
1087 
MARINE SERVICES CO. LTD. 
suit in rem warrant of arrest of vessel is issued by the High A 
Court, all interested persons shall have a right to intervene 
and lay their claim by filing an affidavit showing that he is 
interested in the property under arrest - On facts, in an 
admiralty proceedings, where several persons have lodged 
their claim, even the attachment made by Bombay High 
B 
Court has to be decided only if an application for payment 
of attached amount is made - Single Judge of the Madras 
High Court after hearing all the parties, who had 
approached the Court, passed the order - Once the decree 
was transferred and transmitted by the Bombay High Court C 
to the Madras High Court, appellant could not have moved 
the Bombay High Court and obtained an order without 
notice to the creditors and claimants - Act of the appellant 
shows that it wanted to avoid any contest of its claim by D 
other creditors/claimants - When the property was in the 
custody of Madras High Court, being the transferee court 
of title of priority arisen between the person having decree 
in his favour and person not being the judgment debtor is 
to be determined by the transferee court - Further, the E 
Bombay High Court had given liberty to the appellant to 
move the Madras High Court for appropriate order for 
disbursement of amount - Also the Bombay High Court 
while passing the order of attachment was not aware that 
the vessel was seized by the
Madras High Court much prior F 
to the filing of the suit by the appellant in Bombay High 
Court - Division Bench recorded the finding that Madras 
High Court while deciding the issues in the suit filed under 
admiralty jurisdiction considered the interest and also 
priorities of all interveners and also parties to the suit; and G 
that the appellant ought to have made claim u/Or. XL/I r. 
11 as also impleaded the necessary parties - It rightly held 
that no court is so prestige conscious that it would stand 
in the way of legitimate legal proceedings for redressal or 
relief sought for by the litigant - Code of Civil Procedure, H
1088 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
1908 - 0. XX/ r 52. 
Shivshankar Gurgar vs. Dilip 2014 (1) SCR 18: (2014) 
2 SCC 465; Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. 
Modern Construction and Company 2013 (10) SCR 466: 
B (2014) 1 SCC 648; Shaukat Hussain alias Ali Akram and 
Others vs. Smt. Bhuneshwari Devi (dead) by Lrs. and 
Others 1973 (1) SCR 1022: (1972) 2 SCC 731 - referred 
to. 
c 
D 
Case Law Reference 
2014 (1) SCR 18 
Referred to. 
Para 26 
2013 (10) SCR 466 
Referred to. 
Para 26 
1973 (1) SCR 1022 
Referred to. 
Para 27 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
6156 of 2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.11.2003 of the 
E High Court of Madras in OSA No. 175 of 1998. 
Fereshte D. Sethna, Kuber Dewan, B. Vijayalakshmi 
Menon for the Appellant. 
F 
P. B. Suresh, Vipin Nair, Udayaditya Banerjee, Vishnu 
Shankar Jain, Kushal Bolmal (for Temple Law Firm), Nikhil 
Nayyar, Subramonium Prasad, Rajiv Dalal for the 
Respondents. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
M.Y. EQBAL, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the 
judgment and order dated 27 .11.2003 passed by a Division 
Bench of the High Court of Madras in OSA No.175 of 1998, 
H dismissing the appeal of the appellant, upholding inter alia
PETROMARINE PRODUCTS LTD. v. OCEAN 
1089 
MARINE SERVICES CO. LTD. [M.Y. EQBAL, J.] 
the disbursements made by Single Judge of the sale A 
proceeds received by sale of the ship in question named 
as motor vessel 'Eleni'. 
2. The factual matrix of the case is that in February, 
1997 Respondent No.1 filed a suit being C.S.No.97 of 1997 
B 
under the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Court of Madras, 
for recovery of US$ 22,705.84 against Respondent No.3 
herein along with an application praying for an order of 
arrest of the vessel which arrived at Port of Madras. The 
High Court in terms of Order dated 27.2.1997 issued arrest C 
warrant. Whereas in the Bombay High Court, Appellant 
filed an admiralty suit A.S.No.27 of 1997 in March, 1997 
for recovery of amount of US$ 39,712.97 i.e. the security 
of Appellant's suit claim. On 19.03.1997, Bombay High 
Court directed the order of arrest of Vessel M.V. Eleni. 
D 
3. Meanwhile, High Court of Madras appointed 
Respondent No. 2 as the Advocate Commissioner. On 
25.04.1997, terms and conditions for sale were approved 
by the Madras High Court. Publications with respect to the 
E 
sale of the said vessel were made in various newspapers. 
Unaware of such proceedings, Bombay High Court, on 
11.09.1997, passed an ex-parte decree in the suit filed by 
the appellant for a sum of US$ 50,081.74 with interest, 
which was communicated to the Advocate Commissioner F 
(Respondent No.2), appointed by the Madras High Court, 
with a request to take
note of their claim against the Vessel. 
The Sheriff of Mumbai also communicated to Respondent 
No.2 on 21.10.1997 that the Vessel MV ELENI was 
arrested in due compliance of Warrant of Arrest dated G 
18.03.1997 and 21.03.1997 passed by the High Court of 
Bombay and requested them to take note of the arrest 
order passed by Bombay High Court.Before the aforesaid 
decree transmitted by the Bombay High Court was received 
H
1090 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 4 S.C.R. 
A by the Madras High Court on 24.1.1998, learned Single 
Judge of the Madras High Court confirmed the sale in 
favour of M/s. Jansee Steel Industry Pvt. Ltd. on 
24.10.1997. In the execution petition moved by the 
appellant in February, 1998, Bombay High Court issued 
B notice under Order 21 Rule 52 of the C.P.C., requesting 
the Madras High Court to hold the decretal sum in an 
aggregate amount of US$ 58,325.64 from and out of the 
funds deposited by M/s. Jansee Steel Industries. 
C 
4. It is worth to note here that the tender of Mis. Jansee 
Steel Industries had been challenged by another company 
M/s. Bancorex by way of another suit being O.S.A.No.15 
of 1998, which ultimately was allowed on 23.4.1998 by 
Madras High Court by setting aside the confirmation of sale 
D made in favour of M/s. Jansee and the matter was 
remanded to the Single Judge to ensure that the best 
possible price is secured. Consequently, learned Single 
Judge accepted the only bid of M/s. Jansee Steel Industry 
Pvt. Ltd. for a sum of US$ 4,70,000 and they were directed 
E to pay the balance consideration within three weeks, failing 
which the earnest money deposited by them would stand 
forfeited. Advocate commissioner was also directed to 
deposit the entire amount to the credit of the suit. Madras 
F High Court confirmed the sale made in favour of M/s. 
Jansee Steel Industry Pvt. Ltd. on 05.10.1998 and ordered 
reimbursement of cost of sale, payment to
the crew 
members and charges to the statutory authorities. 
5. On 25.09.1998, Bombay High Court informed the 
G passing of ex-parte decree in favour of appellant and asked 
Registrar of the Madras High Court to remit the funds lying 
attached pursuant to Order 21 Rule 52 Notice. On 7th 
October 1998, Bombay High Court made a further order 
H in favour of the appellant who filed execution petition in the
PETROMARINE PRODUCTS LTD. v. OCEAN 
1091 
MARINE SERVICES CO. LTD. [M.Y. EQBAL, J.] 
Bombay High Court. The Registry of Bombay High Court A 
sent letters dated 28.01.1999, 09.03.1999 and 11.03.1999, 
requesting the Registrar of the Madras High Court to give 
reply for non-remittance of the attached funds. Finally, on 
03.09.1999, Bombay High Court gave liberty to the 
appellant, to obtain suitable orders from the Madras High 
B 
Court and closed the Execution Application. 
6. Meanwhile after the confirmation of the sale, the sale 
proceeds were disbursed to the crew members of statutory 
authorities and a direction was issued on 6.10.1998 to the C 
commissioner to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 
12,38, 164/-. 
7. Thereafter, appellant challenged the order dated 
06.10.1998 passed by single Judge in Application No.1217 D 
of 1997 in C.S.No.97 of 1997, pleading before the Division 
Bench of the Madras High Court that on the service of 
notice issued by the Bombay High Court under Order 21 
Rule 52 CPC, the appellant was entitled to the decretal 
amount alone and the amount attached ought not to have E 
been disbursed to third parties and the custody court. 
namely the Madras High Court has no authority to make 
rateable distribution. Per contra, it was submitted on behalf 
of the respondents before the Madras High Court that the 
appellant failed to bring to the notice of the Bombay High 
F 
Court that the Madras High Court was already seized with 
the matter. Had the
appellant brought to the notice of the 
Bombay High Court about the proceedings entertained by 
the Madras High Court, which were much prior to the suit 
filed by them, the Bombay High Court would not have G 
passed the attachment order. 
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, Division 
Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the application 
keeping it open for the appellant to lay their claim under H
1092 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015} 4 S.C.R. 
A Order XLll Rule 11 of Original Side Rules. The Division 
Bench held that once the suit is filed invoking admiralty 
jurisdiction of the Madras High Court, the suit in rem, it 
decides the interest of not only parties to the suit but also 
other parties who are interested in the property under arrest 
B or in the fund. The High Court observed thus:-
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
"Madras High Court, while deciding the issues in the 
suit filed under admiralty jurisdiction has considered 
the interest and also priorities of all interveners and 
also parties to the suit. We follow the judgment of 
Apex Court in M.V. Elisabeth and others vs. Harwan 
Investment & Trading Pvt Ltd., Hanoekar House, 
Swatontapeth, Vasco-De-Gama, Goa, reported in AIR 
1993 SC 1014. The catena of judgments relied on by 
the appellant are no way useful to them. 
The 
appellant ought to have made the claim under Rule 
11 of Order XLll of O.S. Rules. In the ordinary course, 
no Court is so prestige-conscious that it will stand in 
the way of legitimate legal proceedings for redressal 
or relief sought for by the litigant. 
We find that 
necessary parties are not impleaded by the appellant 
herein and Jansee Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd., which 
is sought to be impleaded as seventh respondent in 
this appeal, is not a necessary party to resolve the 
disputes involved in this appeal. It is not open to the 
appellant to convert the appeal against the order 
dated 05.10.1998
instead of 06.10.1998, as the leave 
was granted to file the appeal only against the order 
dated 06.10.1998. Liberty was granted to Appellant 
to file their claim under Order XLll Rule 11 of O.S. 
Rules." 
9. Hence, this appeal by special leave by the appellant. 
H 
10. Ms. Vijaylaxmi Menon, learned counsel appearing
PETROMARINE PRODUCTS LTD. v. OCEAN 
1093 
MARINE SERVICES CO. LTD. [M.Y. EQBAL, J.] 
for the appellant, assailed the impugned order passed by A 
the Madras High Court on various grounds. At the very 
outset, learned counsel submitted that the High Court erred 
in holding that money lying with the Advocate 
Commissioner was custodial legis. 
Learned counsel 
contended that the High Court in the impugned judgment B 
overlooked that the appellant-execution creditor attempted 
to intervene in the pending admiralty suit in the Madras 
High Court on 121h December, 1997 leading to an order 
dated 241h January, 1998, whereby the appellant was 
directed to work out its remedies in execution. In other C 
words, the appellant was not allowed to intervene in the 
pending admiralty suit in the Madras High Court. On the 
contrary, the High Court held that the appellant ought to 
have been intervened in the suit with its application under D 
Order 42 Rule 11 of the Original Side Rules of the Madras 
High Court. 
11. Ms. Menon further contended that there is nothing 
in the aforesaid O.S. Rules that requires a decree holder, 
who has secured a valid attachment, to seek to intervene E 
in the pending admiralty suit, particularly, when in the 
previous application filed by the decree holder, an order 
has already been passed directing the decree holder to 
work out its remedies in execution. 
12. Learned counsel further contended that the High 
Court overlooked the grievances of the appellant
and failed 
to appreciate the fact that the custody Court was acting in 
F 
a dual capacity of an admiralty Court vested with the higher 
degree of responsibility and accountability upon both the G 
Registrar of Madras High Court and the Advocate 
Commissioner appointed in the pending admiralty suit. 
13. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the order of 
Bombay High Court dated 3rd September, 1999 at no stage H
1094 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 4 S.C.R. 
A ever ordered dismissal of the Appellant's Execution 
Application, either before or after the disbursal of monies 
by the Madras High Court. Thus, no scope or requirement 
arose for the Appellant to challenge the Order dated 3rd 
September, 1999 of the Bombay High Court. 
The 
B surrounding circumstances preceding such order are 
important, viz. that faced with a brazen silence and the lack 
of explanation, since the Registrar of the Madras High 
Court failed to respond despite order of the Bombay High 
Court, the only restrained option left to the Bombay High 
C Court was to enable the appellant to urge matters before 
the Madras High Court. Ordinary remedies of contempt 
of Court in relation to non-compliance of orders of the 
Bombay High Court by the Registrar of the Madras High 
0 
Court were available, but were rather too harsh for the 
Appellant to pursue, hence the Appellant pursued its Appeal 
already pending before the Madras High Court. 
14. Mr. P.B. Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the 
respondent Nos. 1 to 4, firstly submitted that the Bombay 
E High Court by order dated 3.9.1999 had directed the 
appellant to make its claim before the Madras High Court, 
but the appellant had not challenged that order, which 
attained the finality. 
Moreover, the High Court of Madras 
F by order dated 27 .11.2003, had given liberty to the 
appellant to lay the claim before it under Order 42 Rule 
11 of the Rules of the Madras
High Court. · Learned counsel 
then submitted that there are seven other creditors, whose 
claims are pending before the Madras High Court. Those 
G creditors are parties to the suit and they have lost their 
claim before the Madras high Court against the sale 
proceeds lying in the High Court. 
15. Learned counsel then submitted that the Madras 
H High Court being the transferee Court had jurisdiction to
PETROMARINE PRODUCTS LTD. v. OCEAN 
1095 
MARINE SERVICES CO. LTD. [M.Y. EQBAL, J.] 
determine the inter-se priorities of all the creditors or the A 
claimants, in terms of proviso to Order 21 Rule 52 of the 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as the vessel/ ship was sold 
free from all encumbrances, being a sale conducted in an 
action in rem. 
B 
16. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant had 
knowledge of the proceedings pending before the learned 
Single Judge of the Madras High Court, where all the 
creditors were seeking relief for disbursement of fund. The 
appellant had chosen not to object to the said disbursement C 
and not participated in the proceeding. The appellant, who 
is an unsecured creditor, by standing outside the Court 
cannot claim exclusively on the basis of an order of 
attachment. 
17. We have elaborately heard .the learned counsel 
appearing for the parties. It has been pleaded on behalf 
of the appellant that the appellant had obtained a decree 
D 
for a sum of US$ 50,081.74 with interest from the Bombay 
High Court in a suit against the judgment debtor and had 
E 
also obtained an order of sale of a ship of the judgment 
debtor which was lying in the territorial waters of India at 
Madras. The said ship had also been attached by the 
orders of the Madras High Court in a suit filed by 
respondent No.1 for US$ 15,975.04. The Division Bench 
F 
of the Madras High Court on 17.4.1997 appointed an 
Advocate Commissioner in order to bring the said ship
to 
sale, with a view to preserve/prevent her from deterioration 
and thereby protect her creditors. It is further pleaded that 
in April, 1997 the ship was brought to sale and on G 
26.5.1997 an earnest money of Rs.35,60,000/- was 
received by the Advocate Commissioner from one M/s. 
Jansee Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. On 24.8.1997, the bid of 
Jansee Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd was accepted and the H
1096 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 4 S.C.R. 
A Madras High Court confirmed the sale in its favour and.the 
balance amount was directed to be remitted. The Advocate 
Commissioner was informed about the decree of the 
appellant on 25.9.1997. On 24.1.1998, the Madras High 
Court again confirmed the sale in favour of M/s. Jansee 
B Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. In April 1998, however, the said 
sale was set aside in appeal and a fresh sale was directed. 
18. It is appellant's case that in an execution 
application filed by the appellant, Bombay High Court on 
C 17.3.1998 issued an attachment order under Order 21 Rule 
52 of the CPC directing .attachment of a sum of US$ 
58,325.64 (approximately Rs.20 lakhs) from and out of the 
funds deposited by Mis. Jansee Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. 
until further orders of the Madras High Court. The said 
D order of attachment was received by the Madras High Court 
on 161h June, 1998. Meanwhile, on 23.4.1998, the sale was 
set aside and a fresh tender was directed by the Division 
Bench of the Madras High Court. However, the amount 
of earnest money lying with the Advocate Commissioner 
E was not returned to Mis. Jansee Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. 
On 1.9.1998, Madras High Court accepted the only bid of 
M/s. Jansee Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. and directed that the 
moneys be held over to the account of the suit. 
On 
F 7.9.1998, Registry of the Madras High Court effected the 
attachment and returned the notice of the Bombay High 
Court with a
pro order to the Bombay High Court confirming 
that the monies directed by the Bombay High Court to be 
attached stood duly held to the credit of the appellant. On 
G 25.9.1998, Bombay High Court passed an order directing 
the Registrar of the Madras High Court to remit the funds 
lying pursuant to the Order 21 Rule 52 attachment. 
19. The appellant's case in a nutshell is that ignoring 
H the decree and the attachment of the Bombay High Court,
PETROMARINE PRODUCTS LTD. v. OCEAN 
1097 
MARINE SERVICES CO. LTD. [M.Y. EQBAL, J.] 
the Madras High Court on 5.10.1998 paid moneys to the A 
crew and other charges to other creditors who have no 
decree in their favour. On 6.10.1998, on an application 
filed by the Advocate Commissioner showing the 
disbursements, the Madras High Court confirmed the 
disbursements and directed that the balance amount be 
B 
placed in a fixed deposit in view of the order of the Bombay 
High Court which, it is specifically stated, was brought to 
its notice on 6.10. 1998 only. Learned counsel vehemently 
contended that the aforesaid events would show that even 
though the appeilant was a decree holder and had priority C 
over all other creditors, money was disbursed without there 
being any adjudication of priority or dispute of title by the 
Madras High Court, which disbursement could only have 
been done by Bombay High Court. Learned counsel for the D 
appellant also contended that Madras High Court had no 
jurisdiction to deal with the moneys once the same were 
attached under Rule 52 of Order 21 CPC. 
20. It is the case of the respondent that the appellant 
had knowledge of the proceedings before the Madras High E 
Court right from its inception and despite this, the appellant 
did not participate in any of the proceedings before the 
learned Single Judge and allowed orders to be passed. 
Division Bench of the Madras High Court vide impugned 
F 
judgment has, therefore, given liberty to
the appellant to 
make its claims before the learned Single Judge under 
Order XLll Rule 11 of O.S. Rules of the Madras High Court. 
It has been further contended that the appellant specifically 
stated in its suit filed before the Bombay High Court that G 
the subject vessel is lying in the port at Chennai and it is 
only to conveniently avoid the contest with other creditors 
who have all lodged their claims before the Madras High 
Court the suit was filed in Bombay. Further, the appellant 
was the lone claimant before the Bombay High Court H
1098 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 4 S.C.R. 
A whereas all the other claimants were pursuing their claims 
before the Madras High Court, which alone has jurisdiction 
to decide on the rights of the parties and the inter se 
priorities amongst them. 
B 
21. Admittedly the vessel is berthed at the Madras 
harbor and, therefore, the Madras High Court alone had 
jurisdiction to entertain any claim against the subject vessel 
as per provisions of Section 3(15) of the Merchant Shipping 
Act, 1958. The arrest of vessel by the Madras High Court 
C being the first arrest, the vessel and the sale proceeds are 
custodial legis of the said court and no proceedings in 
Bombay High Court can be maintained subsequently 
without leave of the Madras High Court. It is also not in 
dispute that after the decree got transmitted to the Madras 
D High Court, appellant had again moved Bombay High Court 
and obtained attachment order without notice to the 
creditors and claimants before the Madras High Court, 
which act of the appellant clearly exposes that it 
conveniently wanted to avoid any contest of its claim by 
E other creditors/claimants. 
F 
22. We have gone through the relevant provisions of 
Order XLll of Madras High Court Original Side Rules: The 
said Rule reads as under:-
"Rule 3. In suits in rem a warrant for the arrest of the 
property maybe issued at the instance either of the 
plaintiff or of the defendant at any time after the suit 
has been instituted, but no warrant of arrest
shall 
G 
be issued until an affidavit by the party or his agent 
has been filed, and the following provisions complied 
with: 
A. The affidavit shall state the name and 
H
PETROMARINE PRODUCTS LTD. v. OCEAN 
1099 
MARINE SERVICES CO. LTD. [M.Y. EQBAL, J.] 
description of the party at whose instance the A 
warrant is to be issued, the nature of the claim or 
counter-claim, the name and nature of the property 
to be arrested, and that the claim or counter-claim 
has not been satisfied. 
B 
B. In a suit of wages or of possession, the affidavit 
shall state the national character of the vessel 
proceeded against; 
and if against a foreign 
vessel, that notice of the institution of the suit has 
been given to the consul of the State to which the C 
vessel belongs, if there be one resident in Madras 
and a copy of the notice shall be annexed to the 
affidavit. 
C. In a suit of bottomry, the bottomry bond and D 
if a foreign language also a notarial translation 
l•
thereof, shall be produced for the 
inspection and perusal of the Registrar, and a 
copy of the bond, or of the translation thereof, 
E 
certified to be correct shall be annexed to the 
affidavit. 
D .. In a suit of distribution of salvage, the affidavit 
shall state the amount of salvage money awarded 
F 
or agreed to be accepted, and the name and 
address and description of the party holding the 
same. 
8. 
In suits in rem, sevice of summons or warrant 
against ship, freight or cargo on board is to effected by G 
nailing or affixing the original writ or warrant for a short time 
on the main mast or on the single mast of the vessel and 
by taking off the process leaving a true copy of it
nailed 
H
1100 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 4 S.C.R. 
A or affixed in its place. 
11. In a suit in rem, any person not named in the writ 
may intervene and appear on filing an affidavit showing 
that he is interested in the property under arrest or in the 
B fund in the Registry." 
23. Perusal of the aforesaid Rule would show that in 
a suit in rem warrant of arrest of vessel is issued by the 
High Court, all interested persons shall have a right to 
C intervene and lay their claim by filing an affidavit showing 
that he is interested in the property under arrest. 
24. In the impugned judgment, Madras High Court has 
discussed elaborately the sequence of events and reasons 
0 of disallowing the claim of the appellant. 
25. Indisputably in admiralty proceedings, where 
several persons have lodged their claim, even the 
attachment made by Bombay High Court has to be decided 
only if an application for payment of attached amount is 
E made. Admittedly the appellant without approaching the 
admiralty proceedings sought a declaration that it is not 
entitled to priority. Being fully aware of the development 
of the proceedings and suits in the Madras High Court, the 
F appellant did not raise any objection. 
In the result, the 
learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court after 
hearing all the parties, who had approached the Court, 
passed the order. 
In our considered opinion, once the 
decree was transferred and transmitted by the Bombay 
G High Court to the Madras High Court, the
appellant could 
not have moved the Bombay High Court and obtained an 
order without notice to the creditors and claimants. We 
are further of the view that when the property was in the 
custody of Madras High Court, being the transferee court 
H in question of title of priority arisen between the person
PETROMARINE PRODUCTS LTD. v. OCEAN 
1101 
MARINE SERVICES CO. LTD. [M.Y. EQBAL, J.] 
having decree in his favour and person not being the A 
judgment debtor is to be determined by the transferee 
court. We are unable to accept the submission of the 
learned counsel for the appellant that after order of 
attachment under Order XX1 Rule 52 CPC, the Registry 
of Madras High Court had to remit the amount to Bombay B 
High Court ignoring the pendency of proceedings in the 
Madras High Court. 
26. The decision in Shivshankar Gurgar vs. Dilip, 
(2014) 2 SCC 465 relied upon by Mrs. Menon, learned C 
counsel appearing for the appellant, for the proposition that 
the executing court cannot go behind the decree is not at 
all applicable in the facts of the present case. In the said 
decision, while considering an order of modification of the 
compromise decree by the executing court it was held that D 
it will amount to modification of decree and, therefore, the 
same is without jurisdiction. Similarly, the decision in the 
case of Oil and. Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. 
Modern Construction and Company, (2014) 1 SCC 648, 
for the proposition that in the absence of any challenge to E 
the decree the executing court cannot go behind the 
decree, will also be of no help to the appellant. 
27. Further Mrs. Menon relied upon a decision in the 
case of Shaukat Hussain alias Ali Akram and Others vs. 
F 
Smt. Bhuneshwari Devi (dead) by Lrs. and Others, 
(1972) 2 sec 731 with regard to
the power of the court 
which passed the decree and the transferee court where 
the decree is transferred will equally have no application 
in the present case where the Madras High Court exercised G 
admiralty jurisdiction. 
28. It is worth to mention here that the Bombay High 
Court on 3.9.1999 gave liberty to the appellant to move 
the Madras High Court for appropriate order for H
1102 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 4 S.C.R. 
A disbursement of amount. The Bombay Court held that no 
further direction is required. For better appreciation, the 
order dated 3.9.1999 in the admiralty suit filed by the 
appellant is quoted hereinbelow :-
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
"According to the office of the Prothonotary the 
position remains the same as 31st august, 1999. In 
other words, no communication has been received 
from the Madras High Court. However, Ms. Sethna, 
learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, has very 
fairly brought to the notice of this Court an order 
passed by the Madras High Court on 5th October, 
1998. After noticing the orders passed by this Court, 
the Madras High Court is directed that the amount of 
Rs.12,38, 164/- should be deposited in a fixed deposit 
for a period of 46 days renewable periodically if 
necessary in the name of the Registrar, High Court, 
Madras to the credit of the suit. As noticed earlier, 
the plaintiff has already filed Appeal No.175 of 1998 
in the Madras High Court. In view of the above the 
plaintiffs are at liberty to move the Madras High Court 
for appropriate orders for disbursement of the 
aforesaid amount on the basis of the decree passed 
by this Court. 
In view of the above no further directions are 
required ......... " 
29. It has not been disputed by the appellant that the 
Bombay High Court while passing the order of attachment 
G was not aware about the fact that the vessel was seized 
by the Madras High Court
much prior to the filing of the 
suit by the appellant in Bombay High Court. The Division 
Bench in the impugned order has recorded the finding that 
Madras High Court while deciding the issues in the suit filed 
H under admiralty jurisdiction had considered the interest and

PETROMARINE PRODUCTS LTD. v. OCEAN 
1103 
MARINE SERVICES CO. LTD. [M.Y. EQBAL, J.] 
also priorities of all interveners and also parties to the suit. A 
It was held that the appellant ought to have made claim 
under Order XLll Rule 11 of the OS Rules. The Division 
Bench rightly held that no court is so prestige conscious 
that it will stand in the way of legitimate legal proceedings 
for redressal or relief sought for by the litigant. The Court B 
also took notice of the fact that the necessary parties who 
had led their claims had not been impleaded by the 
appellant in the proceedings. 
30. In the facts and circumstances of the case and C 
having regard to the law settled, so far the admiralty 
jurisdiction of the Court is concerned, we do not find any 
reason to differ with the findings recorded by the Division 
Bench of the High Court in the impugned order. For the 
reason aforesaid, we do not find any merit in this appeal, 
D 
which is accordingly dismissed, however with no order as 
to costs. 
Nidhi Jain 
Appeal dismissed. 
E