Law Insider India

Legal News, Current Trends and Legal Insight | Supreme Court of India and High Courts

J.S. Ocean Liner LLC v/s M.V. Golden Progress (2007)

2 min read
LANDMARK JUGEMENTS LAW INSIDER IN

LANDMARK JUGEMENTS LAW INSIDER IN

Case Brief

High Court of Bombay

Petitioner: J.S Ocean Liner LLC

Respondent: M.V. Golden Progress

Date of Judgement: January 25, 2007

Company Appeal (L) No. 47 of 2012

Appeal (L) No. 47 of 2012

Citation: 2007 SCC OnLine Bom 69

Bench / Coram: Justices R Lodha, S Bobde, S Vazifdar

Statutes Referred:

The Arbitration Act, 1940

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996

Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017

UNCITRAL Model Law

Cases Referred:

Blue Diamond Freight Pvt. Ltd. v. M.V Indurva Valley

P. Anand Gajapathi Raju v. P.V.G. Raju

Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading S.A. & Anr.

Judgement:

Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has held that an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not maintainable for the arrest of the any Ship for securing the amount in dispute in the arbitration. The same is applicable to other class of movable assets.

“On thoughtful consideration and true construction of section 9(ii)(b), we also take the view that section 9(ii)(b) does not refer to the jurisdiction to issue a warrant of arrest. We find ourselves in respectful concurrence with the view of Lord Justice Robert Goff in Tuyuti which is also in line with the view of Lord Brandon in Rena K. (1978) 1 Lloyd’s Report 545 while dealing with section 12(6)(f) of the English Arbitration Act, 1950; the said provision being quite similar to our provision 9(ii)(b).”

“In what we have discussed above, and upon taking into consideration all relevant aspects, we have no hesitation in holding that an application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not maintainable for the arrest of the vessel and that section 9(ii)(b) “securing the amount in dispute in the arbitration” cannot be held to be referable to the arrest of the ship.”

The view of the Division Bench in M.V. Indurva Valley to the effect: “The remedy of the appellants is to make an application for interim relief in terms of section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996”, is not correct view and is accordingly, overruled.”

Drafted By – Abhijit Mishra