Admirality Suit| Intra-Court Appeal Does Not Lie Against All Interim Orders : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that an intra-court appeal does not lie against an order of addition of a party in an admiralty suit.

"An appeal does not lie to the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court from an order of the Commercial Division (Single Bench) of the same High Court for addition of a party in an admiralty suit governed by the Admiralty Act", the bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and AS Bopanna observed. The court observed that all interim orders are not appealable. 

In this case, the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court of Judicature at Madras allowed a Commercial Appeal filed by Banque Nationale De Geneve, and set aside an order dated passed by the Commercial Division (Single Bench) of the High Court, adding Gulf Petroleum FZC as defendant in the Admiralty Suit. The main issue raised in this appeal filed by the M/s Galaxy Marine Services Limited against the Division bench order was whether an appeal lies to the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court from an order of the Commercial Division (Single Bench) of the same High Court for addition of a party, in an Admiralty Suit governed by the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017?

The court noted that in view of Section 12 of the Admiralty Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, shall apply to all proceedings before the High Court, under the Admiralty Act, insofar as they are not inconsistent with, or contrary to the provisions of the Admiralty Act or any rule made thereunder. There being no inconsistency between Order 1 Rule 10(2) and any provision of the Admiralty Act, Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC would be applicable to suits and/or proceedings governed by the Admiralty Act, the court noted. The bench further noticed that Section 14 of the Admiralty Act, provides that notwithstanding any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from any judgment, decree or final order or interim order of a Single Bench of the High Court under the Admiralty Act, to a Division Bench of the High Court. On the other hand, Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act says that no appeal shall lie from any order of a Commercial Division or Commercial Court otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act. Referring to various provisions, the bench observed:

"If such an order under the Code of Civil Procedure which does not fall under Order XLIII of CPC is held to be appealable, then the entire purpose of the Commercial Courts Act would be defeated, and every single order passed in a course of a trial of an admiralty suit would be appealable under section 14 of the Act. Such orders would be large in number including orders in relation to discovery, inspection, case management hearing, admissibility of evidence, framing of issues, interrogatories, etc. This would make a mockery of the intended purpose of Parliament in enacting the Commercial Courts Act, which is to expedite trials in commercial suits of a specified value, and restrict the number of interlocutory appeals.. This Court is of the view that an order for addition of a party under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC is not appealable under section 14 of the Admiralty Act."

... It is not the intent of the overriding provision of Section 14 to nullify Section 12 of the Admiralty Act. Section 12 of the Admiralty Act applies to all proceedings in the High Court whether they be original proceedings or appellate proceedings.. On a harmonious reading of Sections 12 and 14 of the Admiralty Act with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, an intra-court appeal under the Admiralty Act to the Commercial Division of the High Court would lie from any judgment, decree or final order under the Admiralty Act or an interim order under the Admiralty Act relatable to the orders specified in Order 43, Rule 1."

While allowing the appeal, the court further observed:

"It could not possibly have been the legislative intent of the Admiralty Act to make all interim orders appealable. Such a wide interpretation of the expression "interim order" would mean that any party would be able to delay the trial and final disposal by filing appeals even from inconsequential orders calling for affidavits and the like. We, therefore, hold that an appeal does not lie to the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court from an order of the Commercial Division (Single Bench) of the same High Court for addition of a party in an admiralty suit governed by the Admiralty Act."

Case details

Owners And Parties Interested In The Vessel M.V. Polaris Galaxy vs Banque Cantonale De Geneve | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 793 | CA 6897-6898 OF 2022 | 23 September 2022 | Justices Indira Banerjee and AS Bopanna

Headnotes

Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 ; Section 12,14 - Code of Civil Procedure 1908, Order 1 Rule 10(2) , Order XLIII Rule 1 - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - An order for addition of a party under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC is not appealable under section 14 of the Admiralty Act - An appeal does not lie to the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court from an order of the Commercial Division (Single Bench) of the same High Court for addition of a party in an admiralty suit governed by the Admiralty Act - An intra-court appeal under the Admiralty Act to the Commercial Division of the High Court would lie from any judgment, decree or final order under the Admiralty Act or an interim order under the Admiralty Act relatable to the orders specified in Order 43, Rule 1 - An order for addition of a party under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC is not appealable under section 14 of the Admiralty Act - It could not possibly have been the legislative intent of the Admiralty Act to make all interim orders appealable. (Para 81-88)

Interpretation of Statutes - When two or more enactments operating in the same field contain a non obstante clause stating that its provisions will have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law, the conflict has to be resolved upon consideration of the purpose and policy underlying the enactments - The rule that a non-obstante clause in a later statute prevails over the non-obstante clause in an earlier statute is not an absolute rule. The question of which provision prevails, would necessarily depend on the object of the enactment and, in particular, the object of giving overriding effect to the enactment or any specific provision thereof. ( Para 68-70)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment