Page 30 - Insurance Times June 2024

5. Claims which arise out of physical loss or damage caused Queen's Bench Division, Admiralty Court, England in
by the operation of the vessel. monetary terms by way of damages for breach of contract
for salvaging and towing the vessel "M.V. AL Tabish" alleged
Therefore, maritime lien is riddled with exceptions, to be renamed as "M.V. AL Quamar" (Quamar Shipping Ltd.).
conflicting judicial opinions and qualifications and it is a Its further case against respondent No. 2 is that though the
confusing mix of statutes and cases. plaintiff was prepared to render services as per the contract
it was prevented from rendering the same by respondent
UK and jurisdictions that follow the English law framework, No. 2 which committed breach of contract and hence this
there is only one way that a ship arrest can happen that is suit in the Admiralty Court for damages for breach of
in rem (against the vessel) instead of in personam (against contract pertaining to salvaging the said ship.
a person/party). There are only 3 types of claims under
English law that Maritime lien gives: Salvage; Crew wages; As the alleged breach of contract for salvage had admittedly
Damages done by a ship. Under Maritime Lien, the claimant taken place in London, the suit was filed in the Admiralty
automatically gets a privilege to proceed in rem against the Court, England. After getting notice of the filing of the suit,
ship despite of the ownership of the arrested ship. respondent No. 2 subsequently remained ex-parte and a
decree for damages for breach of salvage contract was
Under Indian rules of conflict of laws, a foreign maritime lien passed by the English Court on 02.11.1998. It was held by
may not be recognized and enforced as such by the Indian that Court that respondent No. 2 was liable in the sum of
courts even though the proper law of the claim accords it a US $ 265,000 together with interest @9.51% p.a. from
maritime lien status. The Indian Supreme Court in the case 01.06.1994. The vessel in question having crossed the high
of MV AL Quamar v. Tsavliris Salvage (international) Ltd. held seas for discharging the cargo carried by it, ultimately was
that there are two attributes to maritime lien: first a right found to have anchored in Vishakhapatnam Port in Andhra
over a part of property in the res and a secondly a privileged Pradesh. Thus, admittedly, the res in question was found
claim upon a ship in respect of services rendered to or injury located in the territorial waters of Andhra Pradesh within
caused by that property. This indicates that our laws are in the territorial jurisdiction of Admiralty Court of Andhra
consonance with international law. Pradesh, being the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, as a
successor to the Chartered High Court of Madras.
M.V.A.L. Quamar (Respondent no.2 & Appellant) was
involved in a legal case against Tsavliris Salvage Decree-holder having come to know about the anchoring
(International) Ltd. & Ors. (Respondent no.1). The case of the said ship at Vishakhapatnam filed an execution
pertained to the assumption of Admiralty jurisdiction by the petition invoking Section 44-A of the Civil Procedure Code
Andhra Pradesh High Court and the subsequent order of ship (CPC) for arrest and detention of the ship and for recovering
arrest in execution of a judgment and decree issued by the the decretal amount from respondent No. 2 judgment-
High Court of Justice Queen’s Bench Division Admiralty Court debtor on the ground that it had obtained a foreign money
in London. The decree was related to an action by Tsavliris decree from competent Admiralty Court against respondent
Salvage against M.V.A.L. Quamar (formerly known as M.V. No. 2, who was the owner of the said ship M.V. A.L Quamar.
Al Tabish) for damages due to repudiation of an L.O.F.
salvage contract. The ship’s ownership had been transferred In the said execution petition the res in question, namely,
to Quamar Shipping Ltd., which led to a petition to vacate M.V. AL Quamar was joined as a party opponent as it was
the interim order of attachment. The case was decided by required by the decree-holder to be attached and sold in
the Supreme Court of India on August 17, 2000. execution of its decree against respondent No. 2.
Respondent No. 2 is alleged to have sold the said vessel by
Admittedly, a contract was entered into by respondent No. a Memorandum of Agreement dated 04.02.1997 for a sum
1 with respondent No. 2, for the towing and salvage of the of US $ 2,515,000 to a third party and the master of- M.V.
vessel. Respondent no.1 was not available for being AL Quamar had contested the execution proceedings.
proceeded against in the English Court and only respondent
No. 2 was joined as a party to the litigation. Consequently, In contentions by Respondent No. 2 (Judgement Debtor):
the aforesaid money decree passed by the English Admiralty 1. Invocation of Section 44-A of the CPC by respondent No.
Court remained a decree in personam against Respondent 1 decree-holder of a decree passed by the Admiralty
No. 2. Thus, Respondent No. 2 before this Court had Court is misconceived as the said provision gets excluded
suffered a foreign decree passed by the High Court of Justice, by Section 112(2) of the CPC.

28 June 2024 The Insurance Times