Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed an appeal against an order of the learned Single Judge dated 3rd March 2008 in Notice of Motion No.2565 of 2008 in Admiralty Suit No.5 of 2008. The State was not a party to the suit but had been issued a notice in the Notice of Motion. The first respondent (original plaintiff) had filed the admiralty suit and obtained an order of arrest of the second respondent vessel on 14th January 2008. Subsequently, the parties referred their disputes to mediation and the plaintiff sought to withdraw the suit. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge permitted withdrawal of the suit and ordered release of the vessel from arrest, with directions for payment of sheriff's poundage by the plaintiff. The plaintiff paid the poundage by cheque without any protest. The State appealed, arguing that the order was erroneous. The Division Bench held that the State, not being a party to the suit, had no locus standi to appeal. The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Locus Standi - Right of Appeal - State not a party to suit - The State of Maharashtra, which was not a party to the admiralty suit but was only issued a notice in the Notice of Motion, has no right to appeal against the order permitting withdrawal of the suit and release of the arrested vessel. The appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. (Paras 1-10)
B) Admiralty Law - Arrest of Vessel - Withdrawal of Suit - Release of Vessel - The learned Single Judge permitted the plaintiff to withdraw the suit and ordered release of the vessel from arrest. The State, which was not a party, cannot challenge this order. (Paras 2-4)
C) Civil Procedure - Payment under Order - No Protest - The plaintiff paid sheriff's poundage as per the order without any protest or reservation of rights, and thus cannot later challenge the order. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State of Maharashtra, which was not a party to the admiralty suit but was only issued a notice in the Notice of Motion, has the locus standi to file an appeal against the order permitting withdrawal of the suit and release of the arrested vessel.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. The State of Maharashtra, not being a party to the suit, has no locus standi to appeal against the order.
Law Points
- Right of appeal
- locus standi
- party to suit
- withdrawal of suit
- admiralty jurisdiction
- arrest of vessel
- sheriff's poundage
- consent terms
- no protest payment
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (12) 28
APPEAL NO.397 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2565 OF 2008 IN ADMIRALITY SUIT NO.5 OF 2008
A.S. Oka, Smt. Anuja Prabhudessai
Shri G.W. Mattos, AGP for the Appellant. None for the Respondents.
Quesham Bonyad Ship Management Co., and m.v. Ocean Frontier ex MV Parsian (and her owners and all other persons concerned and/or interested in her)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against order permitting withdrawal of admiralty suit and release of arrested vessel.
Remedy Sought
The State of Maharashtra sought to challenge the order dated 3rd March 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Notice of Motion No.2565 of 2008.
Filing Reason
The State was not a party to the suit but was issued a notice in the Notice of Motion. It contended that the order was erroneous.
Previous Decisions
The learned Single Judge on 14th January 2008 passed an order of arrest of the second respondent vessel. On 3rd March 2008, the learned Single Judge permitted withdrawal of the suit and ordered release of the vessel, with directions for payment of sheriff's poundage.
Issues
Whether the State of Maharashtra, not being a party to the suit, has locus standi to file the appeal against the order permitting withdrawal of the suit and release of the vessel.
Submissions/Arguments
The learned AGP for the Appellant argued that the order was erroneous. No submissions were made on behalf of the Respondents as none appeared.
Ratio Decidendi
A person who is not a party to a suit has no right to appeal against an order passed in the suit, unless the order affects his rights. The State, having only been issued a notice in the Notice of Motion, does not acquire the status of a party and thus cannot maintain the appeal.
Judgment Excerpts
The present Appellant State of Maharashtra is not a party to the suit, but a notice was issued to the Appellant in Notice of Motion No.2565 of 2008 in which the impugned order has been passed.
The first Respondent is the original Plaintiff and the second Respondent is the original Defendant in the suit filed by the first Respondent.
Clauses 7 and 8 of the said order dated 3rd March 2008 which are relevant for our consideration, read thus: '7. The Sheriff's poundage, if any, to be paid by the Plaintiff, as per Rules. 8. The suit allowed to be withdrawn with no order as to costs.'
Procedural History
The first respondent filed Admiralty Suit No.5 of 2008 and obtained an order of arrest of the second respondent vessel on 14th January 2008. The warrant was executed on 16th January 2008. The parties referred disputes to mediation, and the plaintiff sought to withdraw the suit. On 3rd March 2008, the learned Single Judge permitted withdrawal and ordered release of the vessel, with directions for payment of sheriff's poundage. The plaintiff paid the poundage by cheque dated 4th March 2008 without protest. The State of Maharashtra, which was not a party to the suit but had been issued a notice in the Notice of Motion, filed the present appeal against the order.
