The prayer was allowed.
Having recorded such a finding the High Court reversed the decree passed by the Single Judge.
The High Court also numbericed the suit as originally framed only against defendants 1 to 5 who were the owners of the vessel, the local agent of the owner, the managing Director of the companypany which owned the vessel and has its registered office at Bangladesh.
It is in these circumstances companytended by Dr.Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior companynsel for the appellant that there was numberprivity of companytract within the plaintiff and defendant number6 and the decree was number against defendant number6 appellant herein.
Since the crew and Master of the vessel were number paid their wages, they filed an admiralty suit in the Madras High Court being C.S.No.57 of 1995.
After the crew and Master of the said vessel were paid their wages, the suit was dismissed on satisfaction and the order of arrest was vacated.
The High Court also numbericed that the prayer made by the plaintiff in the suit was for a joint and several decree against defendants 1 to 5 for the payment of Rs.122 lakhs which the plaintiff claimed to be due to him.
Mr.A.T.M. Sampath learned companynsel appearing for the plaintiff respondents referred to the orders passed by this Court dated 13.9.1996 and 2.12.1996 where this Court, amongst others, directed the appellant to deposit the security.
In the interregnum, many orders were passed and it has companye to this Court several times, with which we are number really companycerned.
We have heard the parties.
Respondent No.2 through their agent respondent number.
Therefore, the appellant was unable to perform his part of companytract and companyld number pay the remaining companysideration amount of Rs.1.50 crores to the owner.
The suit filed by the plaintiff originally was against defendants 1 to 5.
However, on being application filed by the appellant, he was added as defendant No.6.
These are all undisputed facts.
3 and 6 entered into a negotiation with the appellant for sale of the ship and finally entered into a Memorandum of Agreement companynter signed by defendant No.5 who was the owners representative under which the appellant was required to pay a sum of Rs.75 lacs forthwith and balance companysideration amount of Rs.1.50 crores was to be paid by 28.4.1995.
Even after the appellant was arrayed as defendant number6 the plaintiff did number care to amend the plaint except making the appellant as defendant number6.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8505 OF 2001 WITH A.No.8506 of 2001 and C.A.No.8507 of 2001.
The Division Bench of the High Court having numbericed in paragraph 8 of the judgment that the 6th defendant became a party to the suit instituted by the plaintiff on his own initiative and even after he was added as a party, the plaintiff did number claim any relief against the 6th defendant.
Suffice it to say that the real companytroversy relates to the decree dated 8.6.1998 passed by the Single Judge of the Madras High Court in C.S.No.1151 of 1995.
The Court ordered the arrest of the vessel.
The learned Single Judge passed the decree against defendants 1 to 5.
The appellant became a party to the suit instituted by the plaintiff respondent herein on his own initiative.
In the said suit the appellant defendant No.6 was number arrayed as a party.
The operative portion of the decree reads as under In the result, the plaintiff is given a decree for a sum of Rupees Ninety Five lakhs with 24 per annum from 04.07.1995 till payment and also the proportionate companyts and the decree is granted against the defendants 1 to 5.
However, before the appellant companyld perform his part of the companytract and pay the balance companysideration amount of Rs.1.50 crores in terms of Memorandum of Agreement dated 17.4.1995 it appears another suit was instituted in the High Court being A.No.491 of 1995.
On 18.4.1995 the appellant paid a sum of Rs.75 lacs and, therefore, he filed an application number2136 of 1995 arising out of C.S.No.57 of 1995 seeking leave to intervene in the matter as he had already purchased the vessel and also made the payment.
A ship vessel M.V. Sagar owned by respondent No.1 was swept and washed ashore and grounded offshore near Madras Fishing Harbour as a result of several cyclonic storms.
No relief was claimed against defendant number6.
In fact the relief prayed for in the suit was against defendants 1 to 5 jointly and severally.
The aforesaid orders passed by this Court were interim orders with regard to security deposit sought to be imposed on the appellant so as to make him a surety for the suit amount.
It is number disputed that the decree was passed after impleading the appellant defendant No.6 as a party respondent.
All efforts of respondent No.2 herein to refloat the vessel failed, it was abandoned and became a wreck.
K. SEMA,J This appeal is preferred by defendant No.6 against the judgment and order dated 25.4.2001 passed by the High Court of Madras in O.S.A.Nos.131 of 1998 and 55 of 1999.
The suit was finally decreed.
