Case Title: Owners And Parties Interested In The Vessel M.v. Polaris Galaxy V. Banque Cantonale De Geneve
The Supreme Court stated that a court order adding a party to an admiralty case does not give rise to an intra-court appeal.
The bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and AS Bopanna stated, an appeal does not lie to the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court from a decision of the Commercial Division (Single Bench) of the same High Court for the addition of a party in an admiralty dispute regulated by the Admiralty Act. The court noted that no interim injunction is subject to review.
In this instance, the High Court of Judicature at Madras' Commercial Appellate Division upheld a Commercial Appeal brought by Banque Nationale de Geneve and overturned an order from the Commercial Division (Single Bench) of the High Court that had added Gulf Petroleum FZC as a defendant in the Admiralty Suit. If an appeal may be made from an order of the Commercial Division (Single Bench) of the same High Court for the addition of a party to an admiralty suit governed by the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017, to the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court, that was the main question posed in this appeal filed by M/s Galaxy Marine Services Limited against the Division bench order.
The court stated that in accordance with Section 12 of the Admiralty Act, all proceedings before the High Court under the Admiralty Act shall be governed by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, provided that such provisions are not in conflict with or contrary to the provisions of the Admiralty Act or any rule made thereunder. The court stated that Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC would be relevant to suits and/or processes covered by the Admiralty Act because there is no conflict between it and any provision of the Admiralty Act. The bench also noted that Section 14 of the Admiralty Act specifies that any judgement, decree, final decision, or interim order of a Single Bench of the High Court under the Admiralty Act may be appealed to a Division Bench of the High Court despite any other law now in effect. However, no appeal shall be allowed from any order of a Commercial Division or Commercial Court other than in compliance with the requirements of the Commercial Courts Act, according to subsection (2) of section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act. The bench noted, referring to several provisions:
"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 the addition of a party under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC is not appealable under section 14 of the Admiralty Act."
The Court stated further when granting the appeal:
"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 the addition of a party in an admiralty suit governed by the Admiralty Act."