Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd. v. Indomar, Ltd.

• Decision Date: 12 July 1977
• Citation: 377 A.2d 316,173 Conn. 269
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: KAWASAKI KISEN KAISHA, LTD. v. INDOMAR, LTD., et al.

Page 316

377 A.2d 316

173 Conn. 269

KAWASAKI KISEN KAISHA, LTD. v. INDOMAR, LTD., et al.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued June 8, 1977.

Decided July 12, 1977.

Harold B. Stevens III, Cheshire, for appellant (defendant Maritime Chartering Services, Inc.).

Stanley A. Twardy, Jr., Greenwich, for appellee (plaintiff).

Before HOUSE, C. J., and LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, LONGO and SPEZIALE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the defendant Maritime Chartering Services, Inc., hereinafter referred to as Maritime, from a judgment on default of the Superior Court (Tierney, J.) rendered on September 9, 1976, which provided that the plaintiff, Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd., hereinafter referred to as Kawasaki, recover $585,605.30 from the named defendant, Indomar, Ltd., hereinafter referred to as Indomar, plus either 520 English pounds or the American monetary equivalent, plus interest. In addition, the judgment provided: "And Indomar, Ltd. and Maritime Chartering Services, Inc., their agents, assigns and employees are hereby commanded and strictly enjoined, under penalty of law, henceforth and until further order of the Superior Court, against the removal of any monies, receipts or effects presently in the possession of Maritime Chartering Services, Inc., of Greenwich, except as ordered in this judgment." (Emphasis supplied.) It also commanded Maritime to disclose to the court all of such types of property "held by it that are owned or may be claimed by the defendant, Indomar, Ltd.," and to turn over to the plaintiff all of such assets held by it up to the amount of the judgment.

The action brought by Kawasaki was predicated on a judgment in its favor against Indomar rendered by the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court in London, England. The complaint sought recovery on that judgment, alleging that Maritime had in its possession monies, receipts and other effects of Indomar and that unless enjoined Maritime might allow Indomar to remove "such" monies, receipts and effects. By way of specific relief, Kawasaki sought an injunction restraining the defendants from the removal of "any monies, receipts or other effects of Indomar, Ltd., presently in possession of" Maritime (emphasis supplied), as well as "such other equitable and/or legal relief" as the court might deem just and proper.

Maritime did not appear to answer the writ, summons and complaint and on its default the court rendered the judgment to which we have referred, enjoining Maritime not only from the removal of any assets of Indomar in its possession but from the removal of "any monies, receipts or effects presently in the possession of Maritime." Pointing out that this broad injunction, not limited to any property of Indomar in its possession but including any assets of Maritime itself, exceeded the relief sought by the plaintiff's complaint and went so far as to prohibit Maritime from using its own funds to pay its creditors and current operating expenses, Maritime moved that the judgment be opened and that the court modify it to limit the injunction to the removal of any assets of Indomar in the possession of Maritime. The court denied that...