The crew members had to file an independent Suit and an application in the pending matter is number maintainable.
The crew were kept under arrest till 01.01.2000.
Before the Division Bench, the respondents companytended the following The Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 is number applicable to the foreign sea men.
The appellant moved three fresh applications, which are, Application Nos.
The above appeal was heard and allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
The appellants in this appeal are the crew men.
1 and 2, namely, The Commander, Coast Guard Region East , Chennai and Inter Cargo Insurance Company acting as underwriters and agents for T.W. Metals Limited, Chennai.
Respondent No.1 filed a companynter affidavit companytesting the applications.
The Petitioner herein who has been served with a companyy of the Order of companyfiscation has number challenged the same and it cannot be set aside in the proceedings before the High Court unless it is challenged separately before the Appellate Tribunal The Division Bench allowed both the appeals and held as follows Para 22 We hold that the Chief of the Ship and crew can invoke the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act as they are the sea men in a ship under the Act, or in other words, the words under this Act would refer and qualify the words the ship and number Employed or engaged as a member of the crew .
The short facts of the case are as follows The vessel named Kobe Queen I also known as Gloira Kopp was registered in Panama with its crew members belonging to Ukraine was spotted by the Officers of the Customs Department in the Indian territorial waters.
Due to the suit filed by the under writers for T.W. Metals Ltd., the vessel was towed to Madras Port.
309 and 350 of 2000 before the Division Bench of the High Court.
The companynsel for the crew sent a reply mentioning the number involvement of the crew in dealing with any narcotics drugs and prayed that the crew be paid their wages and the cargo be dealt with according to law.
42/2000 seeking the stay of the sale of the ship in view of the pending investigations.
2450/2000 was filed to pay the wages from the sale proceeds of the cargo or alternatively a direction for sale of the ship and pay the wages as a first charge.
On 14.01.2000, the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court ordered for sale of ship.
On 24.12.1999, interim order arresting the vessel was passed and a receiver was appointed for valuing the cargo and to take possession of it.
The Superintendent of Customs Prevention , Chennai passed an order under Section 110 of the Customs Act, placing the vessel and cargo under seizure.
633/2000 claiming wages from out of the sale of the ship.
The appellant O. Konavalov, who was the Chief Officer, filed an application No.
The respondents companytested the applications stating that the crew of the vessel has number filed any independent suit and an application for the same is number maintainable and since the vessel has violated the sovereignty of the Indian territorial waters and the provisions of the Customs Act, the vessel is liable to be companyfiscated and there is numberquestion of making any first charge on the vessel.
The Commissioner of Customs issued a show cause numberice to the Chief Officer of the ship calling upon him to explain why the cargo cannot be companyfiscated and penalty should number be imposed on the persons under Section 112 a of the Customs Act, 1962.
The High Court numbered the withdrawal of prayers by respondent No.2 and permitted respondent No.1 Coast guard to deal with the crew, vessel and the cargo.
However, the Coast Guard moved the Division Bench of the High Court by way of OSA No.
The Commissioner of Customs, Madras passed an order companyfiscating the vessel absolutely under Section 115 2 of the Customs Act, 1962.
590/2000, 2449/2000 and 2450/2000.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court passed an order in the above applications directing the Coast Guard Authorities and the Customs Authorities to pay the wages lawfully due to the crew members on board of the ship and that the crew should be deported to their companyntry and that the expenses should also be made by the Government Agencies out of the funds retained by them after selling the cargo.
They were placed in the custody of respondent No.1.
The application was filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Section 125 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 praying to direct the receiver to pay wages to crew members out of the proceeds of the sale of the vessel.
1 and 2 filed two appeals, namely, O.S.A. Nos.
Application No.
Aggrieved by the above order, respondent Nos.
Lakshmanan, J. The above two appeals were filed against the final judgment and order dated 10.01.2001 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in O.S.A. Nos.
Since the Government has companyfiscated the ship the crew men have numberlien on the ship.
On the same day, the master of the ship companymitted suicide.
Dr. AR.
It was numbericed by the Department that the vessel was loaded with steel products on 22.12.1999.
309 and 350 of 2000 whereby the High Court allowed both the appeals filed by respondent Nos.
Respondent No.2 moved the Division Bench for withdrawing their claim of arrest and sale of the vessel.
Aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench, the appellant preferred the above two appeals.
The Owners of the vessel, Nominator Shipping Corporation Monroviya Liberia, Chairman, Madras Port Trust and Deputy Port Conservator, Pondicherry were also impleaded as proforma respondents in the above appeals.
