Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sunraja Oil Industries Pvt Ltd vs Owners And Parties Interested In The ... on 24 January, 2024
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No.: Commercial Suit No.1 of 2024
PROCEEDING SHEET
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
1) 24.01.2024 SRK, J
Issue notice to the defendant.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff is permitted to
take out personal notice on the defendant by
registered post with acknowledgment due and file
proof of service before the Registry within a period of
three (3) weeks.
The plaintiff filed the present suit invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 5(1)(a) of the
Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime
Claims) Act, 2017, as the claim of the plaintiff falls
under Section 2(1)(c)(iii) of the Commercial Courts Act,
2015, stating that the plaintiff entered into series of
sale purchase contracts for purchase of Crude
Sunflower Seeds Oil of edible grade in bulk which is fit
for human consumption (hereinafter referred to as
Cargo) from 2019 to 2021 with a Company namely
Avere Commodities SA, which is a group company of
Kernel Group of Companies. The disponent owner or
charterer of the defendant vessel, upon receiving the
total sum amount towards the total quantity of cargoes
from the plaintiff, failed to deliver total quantity of
cargoes as per the executed contracts and made short-
landing in delivery causing huge loss and damage to
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
the plaintiff. The plaintiff intimated about the short-
landing/loss of cargo through joint survey and raised
debit notes for such short-landing/loss of cargoes. The
disponent owner or charterer of the defendant vessel,
having received and acknowledged the debit notes,
made part payments till 2021 and failed to pay the
admitted due amount of Rs.2,09,69,751/- in spite of
several reminders and phone calls made by the
plaintiff. The disponent owner or charterer of the
defendant vessel, without making the pending
payment on several requests, chartered the defendant
vessel through its subsidiary group company and
berthed into the port of Kakinada for delivery of
cargoes. Hence, he filed the present suit for judgment
and decree against the defendant for recovery of a
sum of Rs.2,09,69,751/- with interest @ 36% p.a.,
from the date of suit till the date of realization in full
and for arrest and sale of the defendant vessel MT
WHITE PEACH (IMO 9328144), in as is where is
condition, together with her hull, tackle, machinery,
boats, bunkers equipment, paraphernalia and all other
appurtenances presently in the Indian Waters at the
port of Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh State, India.
Heard Sri D.S. Siva Darshan, learned counsel
for the plaintiff. In support of his contention, he relied
on a decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case
of 2014 SCC Online Mad 12328, wherein the Hon‟ble
Apex Court referred to the judgment of the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court in M.V. Elizabet v. Harwan Investment
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
and Trading (1993 Supp (2) SCC 433) and held thus:
"These provisions (Sections 443 and
444 of the Merchant Shipping Act) relate
to detention by reason of damage caused
in any part o the world by a foreign ship
to property belonging to the Government
of India or to an Indian citizen or
company. The sections are wide in terms
and the expression „damage‟ is not
necessarily confined to physical damage.
Ordinarily damage is caused by physical
contact of the ship, such as in collision.
But damage can also be caused to
property by breach of contract or acts of
commission or omission on the part of the
carrier or his agents or servants by reason
of the negligent operation and
management of the vessel."
"All that the Supreme Court said was
that the expression "damage done by a
ship" appearing in Section 443 is so elastic
as to include even the breach of
obligations created by contracts and that
the powers of the Court are not limited by
colonial practices. A reading of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in M.V.
Elisabeth, in totality, would show that
there are a wide range of claims, in
respect of which an action in rem could be
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
initiated and the arrest of the vessel
sought."
This Court, having considered the submissions of
the learned counsel for the plaintiff and on perusal of
the material on record, is satisfied that the plaintiff has
shown prima facie case, balance of convenience and
irreparable loss and injury for grant of ad-interim order
of arrest of the defendant vessel MT WHITE PEACH
(IMO 9328144).
This Court exercising the Admiralty jurisdiction
under Section 5 of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and
Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017, hereby order
the arrest of the defendant vessel MT WHITE PEACH
(IMO 9328144) in as is where is condition, together
with the hull, tackle, machinery, boats, bunkers
equipment, paraphernalia and all other appurtenances
presently in the Indian Waters at the port of Kakinada,
Andhra Pradesh State, India, for a period of six (6)
weeks.
List the matter after four (4) weeks.
______
SRK, J
Note:
Issue CC today
(B/O)
Nsr
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
