RAJ SHIPPING AGENCIES V BARGE MADHWA AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Admiralty and Vice-Admiralty Jurisdiction), K R Shriram J, 19 May 2020

Admiralty – Legal personality of a ship – Claims in rem – Whether leave under Companies Act required to proceed with suit in Admiralty – Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act 2017 – Companies Act 1956 – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016

Orders of arrest against vessels had been obtained in a large number of suits in 2015. On 5 May 2017 the court received a petition to wind up GOL, the owner of the defendant vessels in two of the suits. On 4 December 2017, the company was ordered wound up. When on 9 March 2018 the suit concerning one of those vessels was listed, the liquidator objected to the suit proceeding without leave under section 446 of the Companies Act 1956. Questions arose as follows. Was there a conflict between actions in rem filed under the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act 2017 (Admiralty Act) and the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC) and if so, how was the conflict to be resolved? Was leave under section 446(1) of the Companies Act required for the commencement or continuation of an Admiralty action in rem where a winding up order had been made or the Official Liquidator had been appointed as provisional liquidator of the company that owned the ship?