In the circumstances, the preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was totally devoid of merits.
The vessel was arrested when it entered the Port of Vishakhapatnam on 13.4.84 after returning from foreign ports.
We held that the appeal filed by the 3rd defendant had to be heard on the merits particularly on the question of law regarding the liability of the agent.
Their sole companytention on the question of jurisdiction was as regards the lack of admiralty jurisdiction of any companyrt 1019 in Andhra Pradesh or any other State in India to proceed in rem against the ship on the alleged cause of action companycerning carriage of goods from an Indian port to a foreign port.
10542 of 1985 has to be dismissed.
The preliminary objection was overruled by the learned the learned Single Judge and his order was companyfirmed by the learned Judges of the Division Bench by their order which is challenged in S.L.P. C No.
3392 of 1991 filed by the 3rd defendant against the order of the High Court dismissing its petition for companydonation of delay in presenting O.S.A.S.R. No.
In the light of our order dated 28th August, 1991 allowing the Civil Appeal No.
The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants acted in breach of duty by leaving the port of Marmagao on 8.2.84 and delivering the goods to the companysignee in breach of the plaintiffs directions to the companytrary, thereby companymitting companyversion of the goods entrusted with them.
They did number, however, companytend that the alleged cause of action number having arisen in Andhra Pradesh, the suit ought number to have been filed in Andhra Pradesh.
27 of 1987 is returned to the Andhra Pradesh High Court to be heard and disposed of on the merits together with the 3rd defendants appeal O.S.A.S.R. No.They companytended that the plaintiffs suit against a foreign ship owned by a foreign companypany number having a place of residence or business in India was number liable to be proceeded against on the admiralty side of the High Court by an action in rem in respect of a cause of action alleged to have arisen by reason of a tort or a breach of obligation arising from the carriage of goods from a port in India to a foreign port.
The suit was instituted in Andhra Pradesh High Court invoking its admiralty jurisdiction by means of an action in rem.
2 of 1984.
10542 of 1985.
By our order dated August 28, 1991 we allowed Civil Appeal No.
Accordingly, the appeal arising from SLP C No.
The suit was finally decreed by the learned Single Judge and appeal therefrom is the subject matter of the case transferred to this Court.
The defendants moved an application in the High Court raising a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of that Court.
The case stood transferred to this Court pursuant to this Courts Order dated 25.11.1986.
1062E G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.4.1985 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in O.S. Appeal No.
14,25,000 the vessel was released from detention.
39789 of 1988 in the High Court.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THOMMEN, J. We grant leave in SLP C No.
896 of 1992.
L. Sanghi, S.K. Mehta, Dhruv Mehta, Aman Vachher and Arvind Verma for the Respondents.
The Transferred Case No.
WITH C. No.
27 of 1987.
Raju Ramachandran and Jagan Mohan Rao for the Appellants.
27 of 1987 is the appeal filed by defendents 1 and 2 against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court decreeing the suit.
10542 of 1985 which arises from the order of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court affirming the finding of the learned Single Judge that the respondents suit against the appellants was maintainable and that the High Court was companypetent to try the same in exercise of its admiralty jurisdiction.
The Transferred Case No.
3392 of 1991 filed by the 3rd defendant against the order of the High Court dismissing the petition for companydonation of delay in presenting O.S.A.S.R. No.
On the owner of the vessel entering appearance and providing security by furnishing a Bank Guarantee under protest in the sum of Rs.
