Arbitral Digest

Matter

Indian Overseas Bank v Seabulk Systems Inc and Others (Hong Kong High Court HCA 846/2012)

  1. 25 May 2010China

    25 May 2010China

    Orders of the No 2 Intermediate People's Court in Shanghai dated 25 May 2010

    No 2 Intermediate People's Court in Shanghai

    Decision summary
    The court issued four orders restraining Bank of China, Shanghai Branch from paying under the Advance Payment Guarantees, treating demands made by Seabulk Systems Inc through Indian Overseas Bank as fraudulent and non-compliant with the guarantees.

    Supporting details

    4 participants
    ZPMC
    Indian Overseas Bank
    Seabulk Systems Inc
    Bank of China, Shanghai Branch
    No 2 Intermediate People's Court in Shanghai

    6 months and 4 days later · 188 days

  2. 29 November 2010Arbitration

    29 November 2010Arbitration

    Interim Award of the Quebec Arbitration Tribunal dated 29 November 2010

    Decision summary
    The Quebec Arbitration Tribunal awarded CAD 3,666,355.96 to Seabulk Systems Inc in the arbitration concerning the Quebec Contract.

    Supporting details

    2 participants
    Seabulk Systems Inc
    Quebec Stevedoring Co Ltd

    1 year, 5 months and 23 days later · 540 days

  3. 22 May 2012China

    22 May 2012China

    Decisions of the Intermediate People's Court in Shanghai dated 22 May 2012

    Intermediate People's Court in Shanghai

    Decision summary
    The court held that Bank of China, Shanghai Branch had confirmed Indian Overseas Bank as the new beneficiary entitled to demand payment under the Advance Payment Guarantees, but found the demand to be a manifest abuse or unfair calling and ordered the bank to cease payment.

    Supporting details

    4 participants
    Shanghai Zhenhua Port Machinery Co Ltd
    Indian Overseas Bank
    Seabulk Systems Inc
    Bank of China, Shanghai Branch
    Intermediate People's Court in Shanghai

    1 year, 6 months and 7 days later · 556 days

  4. 29 November 2013China

    29 November 2013China

    Decisions of the Shanghai Higher People's Court dated 29 November 2013

    Shanghai Higher People's Court

    Decision summary
    The court dismissed Indian Overseas Bank's appeals, holding that the Advance Payment Guarantees did not make the beneficiary's demand right assignable, the Assignment Agreements did not amend the guarantees, and Indian Overseas Bank was not the new beneficiary with capacity to demand payment.

    Supporting details

    4 participants
    Shanghai Zhenhua Port Machinery Co Ltd
    Indian Overseas Bank
    Seabulk Systems Inc
    Bank of China, Shanghai Branch
    Shanghai Higher People's Court

    10 months later · 304 days

  5. 29 September 2014China

    29 September 2014China

    Decisions of the Supreme People's Court dated 29 September 2014

    Supreme People's Court

    Decision summary
    The court dismissed Indian Overseas Bank's petition for retrial, upholding that Indian Overseas Bank was not the new beneficiary of the Advance Payment Guarantees and had no right to demand payment.

    Supporting details

    4 participants
    Shanghai Zhenhua Port Machinery Co Ltd
    Indian Overseas Bank
    Seabulk Systems Inc
    Bank of China, Shanghai Branch
    Supreme People's Court

    3 years and 4 months later · 1218 days

  6. 29 January 2018Hong Kong

    29 January 2018Hong Kong

    Judgment of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance in the case HCA 846/2012 dated 29 January 2018

    High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance

    Case no.
    HCA 846/2012
    Citation
    [2018] HKCFI 112
    Decision summary
    The court allowed only the amendment correcting the definition of the Shanghai proceedings and disallowed the other proposed pleading amendments. It entered judgment for Indian Overseas Bank for the amounts claimed, declared that the bank was entitled to be indemnified jointly and severally by the defendants for legal costs incurred in the Shanghai proceedings, dismissed the defendants' defence and counterclaim, and ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs subject to the order nisi becoming final after 21 days.

    Supporting details

    28 authorities · 12 participants
    Indian Overseas Bank
    Representative
    Bianca Yu (For: Indian Overseas Bank)
    Representative
    Holman Fenwick Willan (For: Indian Overseas Bank)
    Seabulk Systems Inc
    Representative
    Timothy Parker (For: Seabulk Systems Inc · Ramesh Vangal · Sidney Sridhar)
    Representative
    Weir & Associates (For: Seabulk Systems Inc · Ramesh Vangal · Sidney Sridhar)
    Ramesh Vangal
    Representative
    Timothy Parker (For: Seabulk Systems Inc · Ramesh Vangal · Sidney Sridhar)
    Representative
    Weir & Associates (For: Seabulk Systems Inc · Ramesh Vangal · Sidney Sridhar)
    Sidney Sridhar
    Representative
    Timothy Parker (For: Seabulk Systems Inc · Ramesh Vangal · Sidney Sridhar)
    Representative
    Weir & Associates (For: Seabulk Systems Inc · Ramesh Vangal · Sidney Sridhar)
    High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance
    Other
    Witness
    Zhou Jing

    Authorities cited

    28
    • Rules of the High Court (Hong Kong), Order 20 rules 5 and 8
      rules
    • Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2018
      secondary source
    • DBS Hong Kong Ltd v Sit Pan Jit, unrep HCA 382/2009, 6 February 2014
      case
    • Ketteman v Hansel Properties Ltd [1987] 1 AC 189
      case
    • Li Shiu To v Li Shiu Tsang & Anor, HCA 416 of 2003, unrep, 14 August 2012
      case
    • Independent Automatic Sales Ltd v Knowles & Foster [1962] 3 All ER 27
      case
    • Lever v Land Securities Co (1894) 70 LT 323
      case
    • Cummings v London Bullion Co [1952] 1 KB 327
      case
    • Ramage v Womack [1900] 1 QB 116
      case
    • Roberts v Charing Cross Railway (Roberts v Charing Cross, etc, Ry (1903) 87 LT 732)
      case
    • Tadjudin Sunny v Bank of America, National Association, unrep, HCA 322/2008, [2014] HKEC 2138
      case
    • Woods v Martins Bank [1959] 1 QB 55
      case
    • Morgan v Lloyds Bank Plc [1998] Lloyds Rep: Banking 73
      case
    • Cornish v Midland Bank PLC [1985] 3 All ER 513
      case
    • Fennoscandia Ltd v Robert Clarke [1999] All ER (D) 25
      case
    • Verity v Lloyds Bank Plc [1996] Fam Law 213, [1995] CLC 1557
      case
    • Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd (1964) AC 465
      case
    • Standard Chartered Bank v Walker [1982] 1 WLR 1410
      case
    • Cuckmere Brick Co Ltd v Mutual Finance Ltd [1971] Ch 949
      case
    • Gaskell v Gosling [1896] 1 QB 669
      case
    • American Express International Banking Group Corp v Hurley [1985] 3 All ER 564
      case
    • Basab Inc & Anor v Superb Glory Holdings Ltd & Ors, HCA 6/2014, 9 March 2017
      case
    • Silven Properties Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland [2004] 1 WLR 997
      case
    • Downsview Nominees Ltd v First City Corp [1993] AC 295
      case
    • China & South Seas Bank Ltd v Tan [1990] 1 AC 536
      case
    • Watts v Shuttleworth (1860) 5 H & N 235
      case
    • Wulff v Jay (1872) LR 7 QB 756
      case
    • ICC Uniform Rules for Demand Guarantees, ICC Publication No 458
      rules
  7. Date not availableArbitration

    Date not availableArbitration

    Final Award of the Quebec Arbitration Tribunal in the Quebec Contract arbitration

    Decision summary
    The Quebec Arbitration Tribunal awarded Seabulk Systems Inc CAD 4,434,285 in the arbitration concerning the Quebec Contract.

    Supporting details

    2 participants
    Seabulk Systems Inc
    Quebec Stevedoring Co Ltd

Matter record

Report a correction

Indian Overseas Bank v Seabulk Systems Inc and Others (Hong Kong High Court HCA 846/2012) · Matter