Bombay High Court
A.Syed Ameen vs M.T.Ece Nur K And Anr on 5 January, 2021
Bench: B.P. Colabawalla
Anjali-mentioned
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
ADMIRALTY & VICE-ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION
Digitally signed
Anjali T. by Anjali T.
Aswale COMMERCIAL ADMIRALTY SUIT (L)NO. 188 OF 2021
Aswale Date: 2021.01.05
16:46:09 +0530 WITH
JUDGE'S ORDER (L)NO. 191 OF 2021
IN
COMMERCIAL ADMIRALTY SUIT (L)NO. 188 OF 2021
A. Syed Ameen ... Plaintiff
Vs.
m.t. ECE NUR K ... Defendant
Mr. Bimal Rajasekhar for the Plaintiff.
CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA, J
DATE: 5th JANUARY 2021
(In Chambers)
P.C.
1. Mentioned. Heard in Chambers, in view of the urgency.
2. At the outset, the Advocate has informed me that there is no
valid/active Caveat against Arrest of the Defendant Vessel in the Caveat
Warrant Book. The said statement is accepted as an undertaking given
to the Court.
3. The above Judge's Order has been moved ex-parte after circulation was
granted to the Plaintiff. The urgent relief sought is the arrest of the
Defendant Vessel. By the present suit, the Plaintiff seeks a judgment
1
Anjali-mentioned
and decree against the Defendant Vessel, and the arrest, sequestration,
condemnation and sale of the Defendant Vessel, for securing and/or
satisfying the Plaintiff's aggregate claim of INR 21,12,828.09 (Indian
Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Twelve Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty
Eight and Paise Nine Only), along with costs.
4. The Plaintiff is a ship chandler. Upon requests made by the managers/
agents of the Defendant Vessel, the Plaintiff supplied necessaries to the
vessel at Krishnapatnam Port, Kakinada Port and Kandla Port. The
supplies were accepted by the Defendant vessel without any protest.
There are delivery challans evidencing receipt by the Defendant vessel,
with the Master's stamp and signature. Invoices were raised thereafter.
A part payment of USD 4000 was made, which has been given credit for.
5. It is the Plaintiff's case that there are acknowledgements of liability by
the vessel owner. The Plaintiff has moved this application for arrest of
the vessel in respect of its maritime claim for the balance outstanding
principal amount, interest and costs which aggregate to INR
21,12,828.09 (Indian Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Twelve Thousand
Eight Hundred and Twenty Eight and Paise Nine Only).
6. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff and
also considered the averments made in the plaint. After going through
the Plaint and the annexures thereto, I fnd that a prima facie case for
arrest of the Defendant Vessel is made out. In the present case, prima
2
Anjali-mentioned
facie, I also fnd that the claim in the Plaint is in the nature of a
maritime claim. The Plaintiff's claim arises out of necessaries supplied
to the Defendant Vessel for its operation and management. The claim
therefore, falls within the meaning of a maritime claim as defned in
Section 4(1)(l) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction & Settlement of Maritime
Claims) Act, 2017.
7. In these circumstances, I fnd that there is a cause of action in favour of
the Plaintiff and that the vessel being at Mumbai anchorage is within
the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court. As stated above, the Plaintiff
has made out a prima facie case. I am also satisfed that the balance of
convenience lies with the Plaintiff to whom, irreversible prejudice would
be caused if the reliefs sought in the Judge's Order were to be denied.
Accordingly, I order and direct the arrest of the Defendant Vessel m.t.
ECE NUR K along with her hull, tackle, engines, machinery, boats,
bunkers, equipment, paraphernalia and other appurtenances presently
at anchorage at the Port of Mumbai or wherever she is within the
territorial waters of India until the satisfaction of the Plaintiff's claim.
8. I have seen the Judge's Order and it seems to be in the proper form and
with the appropriate contents. I therefore make an order in terms of the
Judge's Order which is signed separately.
3
Anjali-mentioned
9. The undertaking of the Plaintiff's Advocate that the warrant of arrest
will be served upon the Defendant Vessel within a period of six weeks
from today is accepted.
10.After service of the warrant of arrest, if the arrested vessel is not
released by furnishing security or bail amount within 15 days, or an
application for vacating the order of arrest is not fled, or the vessel is
found abandoned by the person in-charge of the vessel or owner, or is
found unmanned, then, in such an event, on an application being made
by the plaintiff, the offce of the Sheriff of Mumbai shall present a
Sheriff's report for auctioning the vessel within 14 days from the date of
receiving communication from the Plaintiff's Advocate or from the date
of knowledge of abandonment of the vessel.
11. This Order shall be digitally signed by the Private Secretary of this
Court. The Plaintiff is at liberty to forward a copy of this Order and the
Judge's Order and the communication from the Sheriff of Mumbai by
fax/ email/ hand delivery/ RPAD to all the concerned authorities who
are directed to forthwith act on the same.
B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.
