Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:03, 28 March 2016

This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Misplaced Pages's quality standards. You can help. The talk page may contain suggestions. (February 2016)

This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (February 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Soviet ship Toyvo Antikaynen at anchor. Photo dated between 1974 and February 1986.
History
Name	Toyvo Antikaynen (Template:Lang-ru) Call sign: UWQZ IMO Number: 7012727
Namesake	Kommunist class of cargo ships
Owner	25 of April 1970–1999: Black Sea Shipping Company, USSR
Operator	25 of April 1970–1999: Black Sea Shipping Company, USSR
Port of registry	25 of April 1970–1999: Odessa, USSR
Builder	Gdansk Shipyard in honor of Lenin, Poland.
Fate	scrapped in 1999 at Calcuta
General characteristics
Type	freighter, tweendecker
Tonnage	GT 12,636 mt Summer DW 10437 mt Summer Displacement 16000 mt
Length	length overall 507.0 ft (154.54 m) length between perpendiculars 478.7 ft (145.92 m)
Beam	67.7 ft (20.62 m)
Draught	29.5 ft (8.98 m)
Propulsion	Diesel "Sulzer" 6 cilindrs, 9600 HP. Single screw propeller.
Speed	15,25 knots
Capacity	5 cargo holds. GRT 9,883 register tons.
Crew	34 persons about in 1985-1986

Toyvo Antikaynen (Template:Lang-ru) was a merchant ship of Black Sea Shipping Company (Soviet Union), tweendecker type general cargo ship, project B401. This ship is one of the Kommunist class of cargo ships. The ship was named in honor of the communist leader in Finland Toyvo Antikaynen, who was frendly to the USSR.

Only two ships of Kommunist class cargo ships had additional figure in the built number (shipyard number). That were Djuzeppe di Vittorio (number B40/101 - B40/91) and Toyvo Antikaynen (number B40/102 - B40/92). Can be it was due to this ships were built on another shipyard in Poland then other Kommunist class cargo ships.

History

The ship was built on 27 of April and was delivere to Black Sea Shipping Company i=on the 1st of June, 1970.

Under Soviet Union flag (1970-1992)

To Vietnam in 1982.

As per U.S. National Technical Information Service "USSR Report - Defense Technical Information Center" dated 18 of August, 1982:

  "BRIEFS

  PREPARATIONS IN ODESSA—The large-tonnage MVS  Mozyr and Toyvo Antikaynen have left for the SRV (Socialist Repiblic of Vietnam). Twenty dry cargo ships from the Black Sea Shipping Line are currently either on the way to or in port in Vietnam. The ocean ro-ro ships Kapitän Smirnov, Kapitän Mezentsyev, and Nikolay Cehrkssov have recently started working on this line. This has enabled transport of wheel  and land technology containers and industrial equipment to be speeded up. The Black Sea line's sailors are delivering cargo to Haiphong, Ho Chi Minh and Da Nang for various hydro, power and industrial projects."

Under repair

The ship was under repair in Yugoslavia in spring 1985.

Under Ukranian flag (1993-1998)

1994 year.

Maritime News printed "Ship Fixture Breakdown" in July 1994:

  "Ship fixtures are a product of Knight-Ridder Financial, TNT, Jul 12, 1994.

  Lake Charles to Shaartuz, Tajikistan via Novorossiysk, Sept. 28, 1,484 net metric tons, flour in 50 kilo bags, (TOYVO ANTIKAYNEN), Ukranian flag, built 1970, Food for Progress, $174.00, full berth terms."

1995 year

Authirs of the book "Voyages of abuse" wrote:

  "Ship’s food is easy target for a disgruntled crew but a Ukranian seaman was threatened with dismissal for complaining about the food aboard his vessel, the Toyvo Antikaynen (Ukraine) in 1995. The master had a particular interest in the complaint because he was suspected by the crew of selling off the ship’s stores."

Discharge and arrest in India

State Of Ukraine vs Md. Shafique Khan showed the contexts in which sovereign immunity appears in the document:

  "2. The appellant in the instant appeal is the State of Ukraine and claims to be the owner of a vessel by the name of "M.V. Toyvo Antikaynen" registered at Odessa in the State of Ukraine. According to the case as made out, the said vessel is registered in the name of the Black Sea Shipping Company which was at all material times the operating agent of the vessel and is an instrumentality of the State of Ukraine. The said vessel arrived at the Port of Calcutta on 5th May, 1997, for discharging cargo and was berthed at Khidirpur Docks in Calcutta. At the relevant point of time the appellant had entered into a time charter with one Asia Express Shipping Agency and the said charter was subsisting when the vessel was berthed at Calcutta. The Diamond Shipping Company is the agent of the Asia Express Shipping Agency. While the ship was berthed in Calcutta Dock some time in the middle of 1997, three business organizations, namely, Spence & Company, Bombay Marine Company and Elitarius Limited, caused the said vessel to be arrested in the Port of Calcutta. According to the appellant, in each of the suits which the said parties had filed, applications were made on behalf of the appellant herein under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure to take the plaint off the file, inter alia, on the ground that the said vessel was owned by the State of Ukraine and that the suit had been filed without obtaining sanction of the Central Government to prosecute a Foreign State and/or to maintain an action against the vessel of the said State under Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said plea of sovereign immunity was rejected by this Court and against the order of the Division Bench rejecting such plea the appellant moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court which did not, however, grant any stay against the order of the Division Bench of this Court.

   4. While the matter was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on or about 19th June, 1998, the respondent herein filed the admiralty suit, being A.S. No. 16 of 1998, against the owner and parties interested in the aforesaid vessel, for a claim of about Rs.7,20,493.35P".

Calcutta High Court write via Internet:

  "A vessel MV Toyvo Antikaynen, registered at Odessa in Ukraine, was arrested following three admiralty actions being commenced while the vessel was berthed at the Kidderpore Docks in Calcutta. The State of Ukraine, claiming to be the owner of the ship, applied in each of the suits for the plaint relating thereto to be taken off the file as the actions had apparently been commenced against a foreign State without permission having been obtained under Section 86 of the Code. Such plea of sovereign immunity was rejected by the trial court and affirmed in appeal. The State of Ukraine moved the Supreme Court but did not obtain any stay of the Division Bench order. During the pendency of the matter before the Supreme Court, the vessel was sold in a fourth suit that had been ostensibly brought against the ship. Prior to the sale of the vessel, a fifth suit was registered by the respondent in the appeal on which the judgment under discussion was rendered."

The crew on the arrested ship

The crew of the arrested ship Toivo Antikainen was breathing fumes in Calcutta, in anticipation of the ship's scrapping and salary for two years. Toivo Antikainen was moored at the mooring buys near the shore. To him chalilis Other ships from Around the World moored alongside on arrival for scrapping. The crews left the doomed ships and rats, striped and spotted Exotic, ran from deserted ships to the ship signed to Odessa port. Like pterodactyls flying mutant mice with a wingspan of up to six meters tried to reach Toivo at dusk. The vessel was glowing like a frying pan: crew slept on the covers of the holds, wet sheets dried out in half an hour. Mosquitoes bited mercilessly. When one kind of parasites disappeared the others annoyed according to the season. Insect-torturers handed over showily and the crew of the arrested ship had not change. We were using an inflatable raft to reach the shore as we had to beg from ships or to pull teeth by pliers of local medicaster for nothing. But shell of the life-rafts corroded by the floating oil in abundance on the surface. When "the knocks on the door" of the captain of "Toivo Antikainen" Albert Makeev reached the Embassy of Ukraine, that was located in Delhi on one of the floors of high-rise hotel, diplomats complained about the cramped conditions and domestic difficulties. Hungry fainting increased and the captain sent SOS to all passing close ships on the 27 of December 1997: "The crew completed to eat the boat's supply of provisions. There is no fresh water, fuel and medicines on board". The distress signal was not sent by the ship perishing in the ocean, it was sent by the ship moored a hundred yards from shore. It was an unprecedented case. The Harbour Master responded only the SOS. The crew received a modest amount for food and money was enough for short time. It was the last SOS of Black Sea Shipping Company and soon "Toyvo" was sold at auction, scrapped and her name disappeared from the reports of marine newspapers for ever. Toivo Antikainen agonized in 1996-1997 when Black Sea Shipping Company was particularly shock exceeded the plan to deliver the scrap metal: 59 ships were taken out of service from August 1995 to March 1997.

The fate.

The ship Toyvo Antikaynen was sign off Black Sea Shipping Company on the 13 of February, 1998.

The ship Toyvo Antikaynen was scrapped in 1999 at Calcuta, India. She was one of the last scrapped Kommunist-class ships.

The court after ship's death

The ship already was scrapped but the court was continued until 2005 year.

  "5. The appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was finally heard on 21st August, 2001. According to the appellants, since at the time of hearing of the appeal it was noticed that the ownership of the vessel had not been established, the appellant decided to withdraw the appeal keeping all the questions of law arising therein open. By its order dated 21st August, 2001, the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted leave to the appellants to withdraw the appeal and the Special Leave Petition leaving the question of law that arose therein open for consideration in the event the appellant succeeded in establishing its ownership.

  6. Thereafter, the appellant tendered one Mr. Surendra Sancheti, the authorised representative of the State of Ukraine to look after their Court matters all over India, as a witness in order to establish sovereign immunity. By his judgment and decree dated 9th August, 2004, the learned Trial Judge rejected the plea of sovereign immunity and decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 7,20,493.35P along with interim interest and interest on judgment at the rate of 6 per cent per annum.

  7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 9th August, 2004, the appellant filed a review application which was also dismissed on 14th September, 2004.

  8. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Judge dated 9th August, 2004.

  9. Appearing in support of the appeal, Mr. I.P. Mukherjee reiterated his plea of sovereign immunity regarding the suit filed by the respondent herein. In this regard, Mr. Mukherjee first referred to Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure which, inter alia, provides that no Foreign State may be sued in any Court otherwise competent to try the suit except with the consent of the Central Government certified in writing by a Secretary to that Government.

  10. Mr. Mukherjee urged that the Black Sea Shipping Company, which is the registered owner of the vessel in question, is an instrumentality of the State of Ukraine and if, ultimately, the appellant was able to prove its ownership of the vessel the suit filed by the respondent would be incompetent, having been filed without the consent in writing of the Central Government to file the suit.

  11. Mr. Mukherjee submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had noticed the fact that the ownership of the vessel had not been established and had consequently granted leave to the appellant to establish its ownership over the vessel so as to attract the provisions of Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In support of his submission Mr. Mukherjee firstly referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.V. Elisabeth and Ors. v. Harwan Investment and Trading Private Ltd. (Goa), reported in AIR 1993 S.C. Page 1014 where the scope and action in rem in admiralty jurisdiction fell for consideration of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Mr. Mukherjee submitted that in the said decision it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that Indian statutes lagged behind in the development of international law in comparison to contemporaneous statutes in England and other maritime countries and that although the Hague Rules are embodied in the Carriage of Goods Act, 1925, India never became a party to the International Conventions laying down those rules. Mr. Mukherjee also pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken note of the fact that India had not adopted the various Brussels conventions on the arrest of sea-going ships.

  25. Mr. Bose then referred to the Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of Ukraine v. Elitarious Ltd., reported in 1999(1) CLJ Page 141, involving the same vessel owned by the Black Sea Shipping Company. In the said decision the case of the plaintiff was that it had supplied stores and provisions to a vessel called M.V. Kapitan berthed in Calcutta and owned by the Black Sea Shipping Company, Odessa. The owner of Kapitan sailed away from Calcutta without paying the dues of the plaintiff amounting to Rs. 20,24,910/-. When the vessel in question arrived in Calcutta the plaintiff filed an admiralty suit against the same owner, M/s. Black Sea Shipping Company, for realisation of its dues and also for arrest and sale of the vessel.

  26. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.V. Elisabeth (supra) the Division Bench held that there was no bar in arresting a sister ship if the maritime claim is not in the nature of any of categories mentioned in Article 1 of the Brussels Convention. After considering the various decisions on the subject, the Division Bench held that the provisions of Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure being substantive in character the same had no application to a proceeding under the admiralty jurisdiction of the Court. On an overall assessment of the law the Division Bench rejected the claim of sovereign immunity and dismissed the appeal preferred by the State of Ukraine with regard to the same ship.

  29. Mr. Bose submitted that the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court should set at rest the issue of sovereign immunity repeatedly raised by Mr. Mukherjee and the appeal was, therefore, liable to be dismissed with costs.

  30. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the decisions cited by the learned. Counsels in support of their respective submissions. Although, the question now being raised by Mr. I.P. Mukherjee had been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Ukraine v. Elitarious Ltd.(supra) the issue appears to have been differently answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

  31. It appears to us that the provisions of Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure imposes a restrictive bar and not an absolute bar in respect of suits filed against Foreign States. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.D.S. Rostock (D.S.P. Lines) Department of G.D.R. (supra) and Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited(supra), we are inclined to hold that a suit in the admiralty jurisdiction against a vessel owned by a Foreign State is competent, subject to compliance with the provisions of Section 86 of the aforesaid Code. As was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the earlier of the two aforesaid cases, it is neither the purpose nor the scope of Section 86 to protect foreign traders who have committed breach of the terms of a contract causing loss and injury to the plaintiff. But at the same time, it is also not the intention of the Central Government to encourage frivolous litigation against a Foreign State. In the Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited case which was one arising out of an admiralty suit filed in the Bombay High Court, although, the provisions of Section 86 were not noticed, the Supreme Court imposed certain conditions both on the State of Ukraine as well as the Captain of the vessel before allowing the ship to leave the harbour.

Gallery

• The part of the letter from the junior officer to his father when the father was in Cuba, on board of the ship Fizik Kurchatov. The letter dated 09 of May 1985. The text of this letter informs that the son was planned as the junior officer for the ship Toyvo Antikaynen and awaiting the ship's arrival in the USSR from Yugoslavia.
• Appraisal, i.e. gathering all information relevant to the contemplated voyage or sea passage of Caicos Strait in June 1985, on Russian language. Photo from Navigator's Notebook of Junior Officer of mv Toyvo Antikaynen.
• Appraisal, i.e. gathering all information relevant to the contemplated voyage or sea passage of Halifax Approaches and Weather in August 1985. Photo from Navigator's Notebook of junior officer from mv Toyvo Antikaynen, on Russian Language. It is means that mv Toyvo Antikaynen arrived in Halifax port in August 1985.

References

1. Суда Украины > Одесское морское пароходство > Грузовые суда
2. ^ Marine Trafic > Toyvo Antikaynen
3. Грузовые суда Черноморского пароходства: типы, фото, история.
4. ^ Nippon Foundation Library >> General Cargo Ship Demolition by Year
5. E-mail:handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA369645 NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE >> USSR Report TRANSPORTATION No. 92 >> page 40 >> date: 18 of August, 1982
6. The photo of a letter confirm it.
7. JOC ›› Maritime News ›› SHIP FIXTURE BREAKDOWN ›› Ship fixtures are a product of Knight-Ridder Financial, TNT, Jul 12, 1994.
8. A.D. Couper with C.J. Walss, B.A. Stranberry and G.L. Boerne “Voyages of abuse. Seafarers, Human Rights and International Shipping”. Publisher: Pluto Press, London * Sterling, Virginia. Year 1999.
9. ^ State Of Ukraine vs Md. Shafique Khan on 21 February, 2005 >> Showing the contexts in which sovereign immunity appears in the document
10. [https://indiankanoon.org/doc/82138117/?type=print Calcutta High Court Gms Marine Company Limited vs The Owners And Parties Interested ... on 7 May, 2010. Author: Sanjib Banerjee]
11. Плавание после смерти, или Под горку к пароходной бойне. >> Разделка.
12. LiveJournal > Потери Черноморского Морского Пароходства в результате нэзалэжности. Дата: 26 October 2013.
13. ^ Единое око. >> Планирование перехода: Учебное пособие.

See also

• Cold War
• SS Nezhin
• SS Karaganda
• SS Metallurg Anosov
• MS Sarny
• "Women (painting)" (Template:Lang-pt) or "Mom & daughter" or "The best girlfriend (painting)" or "The picture in orange"

• Cargo ships
• Kommunist class of cargo ships
• Ships of the Soviet Union
• 1970 ships
• Ships built in Poland