Gujarat High Court High Court

Naresh vs M on 23 December, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Naresh vs M on 23 December, 2010
Author: Akil Kureshi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

AS/13/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

ADMIRALITY
SUIT No. 13 of 2010
 

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

NARESH
BABUBHAI LODHARI ONWER OF FISHING BOAT BEARING REGI - Plaintiff(s)
 

Versus
 

M
V Y M AMERICA(FLAG TIWVAN) & 1 - Defendant(s)
 

========================================= 
Appearance
: 
MR ASHISH H SHAH for Plaintiff(s) :
1, 
None for Defendant(s) : 1 -
2. 
=========================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 23/12/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

1. Learned
advocate for the petitioner submitted that shipping vessel of the
plaintiff collided with defendant No.1 vessel on account of rash and
negligent navigation by the crew resulting into total destruction of
the vessel of the plaintiff. Out of the six fisherman on board five
could be rescued and one is still missing. The plaintiff has,
therefore, lodged a claim of Rs.60 lakhs from the defendants which
comprises of the damage to the vessel, future loss of earning as also
the compensation which the plaintiff may have or would have to pay to
the members of the crew or the family of the missing person. The
plaintiff has also prayed for arrest of the vessel pending for
hearing.

2. Learned
advocate Ms. Shah stated that she has instructions to appear for the
defendants. She has filed a note along with which she has tendered a
demand draft of Rs.60,00,000/- dated 23.12.2010 drawn on Standard
Chartered Bank in favour of the Registrar of the High Court.

3. The
said demand draft be deposited by the Registry. Amount realized
would be invested in a fixed deposit initially for a period of six
months in any Nationalized Bank to be renewed from time to time till
further orders of the Court.

4. In
view of the fact that defendants have provided usual security for the
entire claim amount of the plaintiff, there would be no question of
arresting the vessel.

5. However, in
case the claim of the plaintiff is found to be frivolous, the
question of damages to the defendants may arise. The plaintiff will,
therefore, file usual undertaking to pay such damage as the Court may
direct in the eventuality of the claim being found false or
frivolous. The said undertaking shall be filed within 1 week. Such
deposit is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the
defendants. Issue formal notice to the defendants returnable on
21.1.2011.

(Akil Kureshi,
J. )

sudhir

   

Top