Owners and Parties Interested in the Vessel M.V. Polaris Galaxy vs Banque Cantonale De Geneve

Interpretation of Statutes – Non-Obstante Clause in two or more statutes – Held: As a general rule, the Special Statutes prevail over General Statutes – If both statutes are general statutes or special statutes containing identical or similar non-obstante clauses, the later statute would prevail – However, 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 – 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 – Maxims – Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant.

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – s.2(1)(c)(iii) – Held: A dispute arising out of issues relating to admiralty and maritime law is a commercial dispute as defined in s.2(1)(c)(iii) of the Commercial Courts Act – Maritime Laws.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1 Section 12 of the Admiralty Act applies the provisions of the CPC to all Admiralty proceedings in the High Court. Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act makes it explicit that the provisions of CPC, as amended by the Schedule to the Commercial Courts Act, applies to suits relating to commercial disputes governed by the Commercial Courts Act. There can be no doubt that the Commercial Division of the High Court has the power to add a party to an Admiralty suit, on its own, without any application having been made, if it is of the view that the presence of that party before the Court may be necessary to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. The question is whether an order of the Commercial Court or the Commercial Division of the High Court, adding a party to an Admiralty Suit, is appealable under Section

13 of the Commercial Courts Act, read with Section 14 of the Admiralty Act. [Paras 61, 62][27-B-D]

1.2 Both Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act and Section 14 of the Admiralty Act contain non-obstante clauses giving the Sections overriding effect. While Section 14 of the Admiralty Act which begins with a non-obstante clause as observed, provides that notwithstanding contained in any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from any judgment, decree or final order or interim order under the Admiralty Act, of a Single Judge of the High Court to a Division Bench of the High Court, Section 13(2) of the Commercial Courts Act says notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, or the Letters Patent of the High Court, no appeal shall lie from any order or decree of a Commercial Division or Commercial Court otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act. The proviso restricts an appeal under the Commercial Courts Act, to such orders as are specifically enumerated in Order 43 of the CPC. [Para 67][29-F-H][30-A-B]

1.3 A clause with the words “notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force” is generally appended at the beginning of a section with a view to give the enacting part of the section overriding effect in case of conflict with any other law. Ordinarily, when two or more statutes contain statutory provisions which start with the clause “notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force” and those statutes contain conflicting provisions, a question that could arise is, which statute would prevail. As a general rule, the Special Statutes prevail over General Statutes. If both statutes are general statutes or special statutes containing identical or similar non-obstante clauses, the later statute would prevail. 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. 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. [Paras 68-70][30-B-F]

M V Elizabeth v. Harwan Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd. (1993) 2 Supp SCC 433 – referred to.

2.1 A dispute arising out of issues relating to admiralty and maritime law is a commercial dispute as defined in Section 2(1) (c)(iii) of the Commercial Courts Act. It is clear from a reading of the Admiralty Act and the Commercial Courts Act, that orders passed under the Admiralty Act pertaining to the exercise of in rem jurisdiction by the High Court are the only orders which are appealable under section 14 of the Admiralty Act, whereas orders passed in the trial of a suit and on applications made under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are not orders under the Admiralty Act but orders under the CPC which would be appealable only if they fall under Order 43 of the CPC as provided in Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act. Both the Admiralty Act and Commercial Courts Act are Special Acts. Even assuming that the Commercial Courts Act provisions are considered to be general provisions relating to appeals, whilst the provisions in the Admiralty Act are considered to be special provision for appeal, then too the maxim Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant, which is ordinarily attracted where there is a conflict between a special and a general statute, would not apply. [Paras 73, 78-80][31-E-F; 33-E-G; 34-B-C]

Ashoka Marketing Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank (1990)

4 SCC 406 : [1990] 3 SCR 649 – followed.

Kandla Corporation v. OCI Corp. (2018) 14 SCC 715 : [2018] 1 SCR 915 – relied on.

CTO v. Binani Cements 2014 SCC Online SC 140 – referred to.

2.2 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. 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. Gulf Petrochem is a party to the dispute and the suit transaction and the Contract of Carriage (Bill of Lading) and hence is a necessary party. Gulf Petrochem is also a proper party whose presence is necessary for complete and final decision on questions in the suit. The pleadings in Paragraphs 10 to 12 of the Plaint [Page 264] which are extracted in the Impugned Judgement at Page 11-13 demonstrate that Gulf Petrochem is a proper and necessary party even though the Respondent may choose not to claim any reliefs against them in the present Suit. [Paras 81-83][35-G-H; 36-A-E]

Anil Kumar Singh v. Shivnath Mishra (1995) 3 SCC

147 : [1994] 5 Suppl. SCR 135 – relied on.

2.3 Section 14 of the Admiralty Act provides the fora for an appeal from any judgment, decree, final order or interim order of a Single Judge of the High Court under the Admiralty Act to a Division Bench of the High Court. The expression “any interim order” has to be read harmoniously with Order 43, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure in view of Section 12 of the Admiralty Act read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts 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. [Paras 8486][36-F-H; 37-A-B]

2.4 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. Even otherwise, the Division Bench erred in law in allowing the appeal from the order of the Commercial Division (Single Judge) adding Gulf Petroleum as party defendant to the suit. [Paras 88, 89][37-D-F] Cho Yang Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Coral (UK) Ltd. (1997)

2 Lloyd’s Rep 641 – referred to.

Magic Frames v. Radiance Media P Ltd 2019 SCC Online Mad 38929 – held inapplicable.