Gujarat High Court High Court

Adani vs M on 10 October, 2008

Gujarat High Court
Adani vs M on 10 October, 2008
Author: K.A.Puj,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

AS/720/2008	 4/ 4	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

ADMIRALITY
SUIT No. 7 of 2008
 

with
 

O.J.
CIVIL APPLICATION No.283 of 2008
 

 
 
=========================================================

 

ADANI
ENTERPRISES LTD - Plaintiff(s)
 

Versus
 

M
V TRUBEZH & 2 - Defendant(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MRS
VD NANAVATI for
Plaintiff(s) : 1, 
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Defendant(s) : 1, 
DS
AFF.NOT FILED (N) for Defendant(s) : 2 -
3. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 10/10/2008 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

Heard Mr. Devang
Nanavati, learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff and Mr. Manav
Mehta, learned advocate for the defendants. They have placed
settlement terms on record. The settlement terms are signed by the
respective representatives of the plaintiff as well as defendants.
Both the learned advocates have confirmed that the settlement terms
were arrived at between the parties.

In view of these
settlement terms, Mr.Devang Nanavati, learned advocate appearing for
the plaintiff seeks permission to withdraw Admiralty Suit No.7 of
2008. He has, however, submitted that if there is any breach of
terms of settlement the plaintiff may be permitted to approach this
Court for appropriate relief. He has also submitted that since
terms of settlement are arrived at between the parties, the registry
be directed to grant refund of Court fees in accordance with rules.
Mr.Manav Mehta, learned advocate has no objection if the order is
passed in terms of the settlement.

In view of terms of
settlement arrived at between the parties the plaintiff is hereby
permitted to withdraw Admiralty Suit No.7 of 2008 with a liberty to
approach this Court if any breach of the settlement terms is
committed by the plaintiff. The registry is directed to grant
refund of Court fees in accordance with rules in favour of the
plaintiff.

In view of withdrawal of
the Admiralty Suit No.7 of 2008, OJ Civil Application No.283 of 2008
preferred by the defendant does not survive. It is accordingly
disposed off.

It goes without saying
that as per clause 4 of the settlement terms, after release of the
vessel from order of arrest, the defendants shall not have any claim
on account of any dues, liability and/or any other amount charges,
expenses, costs etc, from the plaintiff within India and/or in any
part of the world in respect of general coverage or towards arrest
of vessel.

In terms of the
withdrawal of the Admiralty Suit the arrest order passed by this
Court on 23.9.2008 stands vacated and the defendant No.1 vessel is
now released from order of arrest. The defendants are permitted to
communicate this order to the Port Authorities by Fax at their cost
and the authorities are directed to act on the Fax copy of the
order. Direct service is permitted today.

(K.

A. PUJ, J.)

kks

   

Top