| Headnote |
Contract Act, I872 - ss.62, 63 - Applicability of.: Vessel inquestion owned by one Third Element Enterprises, a Cypruscompany :-- Appellant-plaintiff supplied bunkers and other necessaries to the vessel and raised invoices which were not paidbv Third Element - Admiralty suit filed by appellant praying forarrest of the vessel - Vessel arrested - Subsequently, howeve1;appellant did not proceed with the matter as the parties had reached.an out of court settlement/agreement dtd. I8. I .2000 - But, sinceno payment was made to the appellant, the vessel was re-arrested on 2.5.2000 - Respondent no.1 filed written statement in the suitclaiming that it had purchased the vessel through successive transferof title in the vessel hence, no cause of action survived againstThird Element, the original owner - Single Judge of High Courtheld that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover their dues- Division Bench reversed the order - Whether on the day of arrest respondentno.1 was the owner of the vessel and hence, appellant's claim againstthe original owner, Third Element on the date of institution of thesuit would not lie -Also, whether in view ofs. 62 there was a novationof the original agreement as the settlement dtd. I8.1.2000 was actedupon and therefore, the original agreement under which payment was due to the appellant need not be performed - Held: For acontract that is altered in material particulars, to fall u/s.62 thealteration must go to the very root of the original contract andchange its essential character, so that the modified contract mustbe read as doing away with the original contract - However, in the present case, the second agreement/settlement dealt with one leg ofthe original transaction, i.e. the leg of payment which was not made,while keeping the original transaction alive- Settlement read as awhole does not amount to novation of the original agreement - s. 63would apply to the facts of the present case - Further, respondent no. I failed to prove that there was a change of ownership of thevessel in its favour on the date of arrest i.e. on 2.5.2000 - Judgmentof High Court is set aside and the decree of trial court is restored -Constitution of India - Art. 372 - The Admiralty (Jurisdiction andSettlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 - s.2(1)(/), (g) and ss. 4, 5, 6, 9, 12, 17 - Brussels Convention of 1952- Art. l (k) -International Convention of Maritime Lien and Mortgages, 1993-Arts.4, 8- Brussels Convention relating to the Arrest of Sea-GoingShips, 1992- International Convention on the Arrest of Ships, 1999-Art.3(J)(a) - Letters Patents of 1823, 1862 and 1865 - AdmiraltyCourt Acts, 1840 and 1861 - Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890 - Colonial Courts of Admiralty (India) Act,1891- SupremeCourt of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925 -Administration ofJustice Act of 1956 - Supreme Court Act of 1981.Admiralty law - Maritime claim and Maritime lien - Differencebetween - Plea of appellant that the necessaries supplied by it to the vessel in question were not only maritime claim but also maritimelien on the vessel - Held: Important materials wherever supplied toa ship for her operation/maintenance would fall within the definitionof a maritime claim - A maritime lien, on the other hand, attaches tothe property of the vessel whenever the cause of action arises, andtravels with the vessel and subsists whenever and wherever theaction may be commenced - A claim for necessaries supplied to avessel does not become a maritime lien which attaches to thevessel - Brussels Convention of 1952 - Art.I(k).Admiralty law - Of India and England - History of -Discussed.Admiralty law - Maritime claim - When can be asserted -Held:A maritime claim can be asserted only at the time the arrest of thevessel is effected and not at the time of the institution of the suit -International Convention on the Arrest ofShips, 1999 -Art.3(l)(a). |
