Case Note & Summary
The original plaintiff, Siem Offshore Rederi AS, a Norwegian company, filed Admiralty Suit (L) No. 20 of 2018 before the Bombay High Court against the vessel ALTUS UBER. The suit sought recovery of US$ 28,889,304, comprising unpaid charter hire and the capital value of the vessel Siem Marlin, arising from alleged breach of a Bareboat Charterparty dated 13 May 2015. The charterparty, entered with Marine Engineering Diving Services FZC (owners of ALTUS UBER), required the charterers to furnish a bank guarantee for US$ 40,00,000 fifteen days before delivery, but they failed to do so. Despite extensions and an Addendum No.1 on 11 October 2015, the guarantee was not provided. On 7 November 2015, the parties executed a BIMCO Supply Time Charterparty with a condition precedent that a bank guarantee of US$ 2,000,000 be presented; this never materialized. The plaintiff terminated the charter on 24 November 2015 and sued. The defendant filed Notice of Motion (L) No. 1392 of 2018, which was dismissed with costs of Rs. 5 lakhs by a single judge (K.R. Shriram, J.) on 25 September 2018. The vessel ALTUS UBER appealed under Section 14 of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction & Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017. At the appeal stage, the parties agreed that the appeal was maintainable. The appeal was connected with other applications, including those by Swordfish Shipco Limited. The judgment does not contain a final decision or reasoned analysis due to truncation of the text.
Issue of Consideration
COMMERCIAL APPEAL (L) NO. 465 OF 2018
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (07) 94
Commercial Appeal (L) No. 465 of 2018
S.C. Dharmadhikari, B.P. Colabawalla
Mr. Sunip Sen, Ms. Priyanka Pol, Mr. Prashant Pratap, Mr. Vishal Muglikar, Mr. Nishaan Shetty, Mr. Kaushik S. Krishnaswamy, Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Mr. Akshay Kolse Patil, Mr. Amitava Majumdar, Ms. Damayanti Sen, Mr. Ruchir Goenka
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Admiralty suit for recovery of amounts due under a bareboat charterparty, including charter hire and capital value of vessel.
Remedy Sought
The plaintiff (original plaintiff) sought recovery of US$ 28,889,304 from the defendant vessel and its owners.
Filing Reason
Breach of bareboat charterparty dated 13 May 2015 due to non-furnishing of bank guarantee, and subsequent failure to perform under a time charterparty.
Previous Decisions
The single judge of the Bombay High Court (K.R. Shriram, J.) dismissed the defendant's Notice of Motion with costs of Rs. 5 lakhs on 25 September 2018. The present appeal is against that order.
Judgment Excerpts
This Appeal [Appeal (L) No. 465 of 2018] challenges the judgment and order of a learned single Judge (K.R. Shriram, J.) delivered in a Notice of Motion being Commercial Notice of Motion (L) No. 1392 of 2018 in Commercial Admiralty Suit (L) No. 20 of 2018.
The parties before us have proceeded on the footing that the instant appeal is maintainable. Hence we are not called upon to decide the issue of maintainability or consider any objection of that nature.
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed Admiralty Suit (L) No. 20 of 2018; the defendant filed Notice of Motion (L) No. 1392 of 2018; by order dated 25 September 2018, the single judge dismissed the motion with costs; the defendant/vessel appealed under section 14 of the Admiralty Act, 2017; the appeal was heard on 24 April 2019 and judgment reserved; pronounced on 23 July 2019.
Acts & Sections
- The Admiralty (Jurisdiction & Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017: 14
