Full Name		Full Name is required
Email ID		Email ID required Invalid Email is ID
(this email-id will be treated as your User ID also)
Address
City		City required
Mobile No		Mobile No is required Invalid Mobile No
	* Mobile No is required for verification of identity

Head Note

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908  - Order XXI Rule (52)

Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 - Section 3(15) - Admiralty jurisdiction - Arrest of ship - Suit for recovery - Admittedly the vessel is berthed at the Madras harbor and, therefore, the Madras High Court alone had jurisdiction the vessel and the sale proceeds are custodial legis of the said court and no proceedings in Bombay High Court can be maintained subsequently without leave of the Madras High Court - After the decree got transmitted from Bombay High Court to the Madras High Court, appellant had again moved Bombay High Court and obtained attachment order without notice to the creditors and claimants before the Madras High Court, which act of the appellant clearly exposes that it conveniently wanted to avoid any contest of its claim by other creditors/claimants.

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908  - Order XXI Rule (52)

Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 - Section 3(15) - Madras High Court Original Side Rules, Order XLII, Rule 3 - Admiralty jurisdiction - Arrest of ship - Suit for recovery - Attachment order - Transfer of decree - Perusal of the Rule 3 of Order XLII of the Madras Rules would show that in a suit in rem warrant of arrest of vessel is issued by the High Court, all interested persons shall have a right to intervene and lay their claim by filing an affidavit showing that he is interested in the property under arrest - In admiralty proceedings, where several persons have lodged their claim, even the attachment made by Bombay High Court has to be decided only if an application for payment of attached amount is made - Admittedly the appellant without approaching the admiralty proceedings sought a declaration that it is not entitled to priority - Being fully aware of the development of the proceedings and suits in the Madras High Court, the appellant did not raise any objection - In the result, the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court after hearing all the parties, who had approached the Court, passed the order - Held that once the decree was transferred and transmitted by the Bombay High Court to the Madras High Court, the appellant could not have moved the Bombay High Court and obtained an order without notice to the creditors and claimants -When the property was in the custody of Madras High Court, being the transferee court in question of title of priority arisen between the person having decree in his favour and person not being the judgment debtor is to be determined by the transferee court -Submission on behalf of the appellant that after order of attachment under Order XX1 Rule 52 CPC, the Registry of Madras High Court had to remit the amount to Bombay High Court ignoring the pendency of proceedings in the Madras High Court repelled - Order passed by the Division Bench upholding inter alia the disbursements made by Single Judge of the sale proceeds received by sale of the ship in question upheld.

Topic(s)-Admiralty jurisdiction - Suit for recovery