The Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of ... vs M. V. Brahmaputra Dolphin And 2 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 15572 Bom

                                                                  2-JO-189-2021.doc

GANESH                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SUBHASH
LOKHANDE
                                   ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Digitally signed by
GANESH SUBHASH
LOKHANDE                     ADMIRALTY AND VICE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION
Date: 2021.10.29
15:40:50 +0530
                                  JUDGES ORDER NO.189 OF 2021
                                              IN
                           COMMERCIAL ADMIRALTY SUIT (L) NO.22182 OF 2021

                 The Board of Trustees of
                 the Port of Mumbai                                 ..Plaintiffs
                          Versus

                 M.V.Brahmaputra Dolphin
                 (IMO NO. 7608916) & Ors.                            ..Defendants

                 Mr. Ajai Fernandes, Ms. Sneha B. Pandey & Mr. Vishal Kurtukade i/b
                 Motiwalla and Co. for Plaintiffs/Applicants.


                                             CORAM :- B.P.COLABAWALLA, J.

                                             DATE    :- 28th OCTOBER, 2021.
                 P. C.:

1. The above Admiralty Suit has been filed by the Mumbai

Port Trust against the Defendants, for non-payment of Port dues as per

the invoice referred to in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Plaint. According to

the Plaintiffs, the statutory dues payable by the 1 st Defendant - Vessel to

the Plaintiffs' Marine-Department workouts to Rs.33,87,685/-. The

claim made in the present Suit is in the sum of Rs.38,32,497.48/-. This

includes the dues not only of the Plaintiffs' Marine Department, but also

that of the Plaintiffs Traffic Department and also interest on the

Ganesh Lokhande 1/4 2-JO-189-2021.doc

aforesaid sum at the rate of 15% per annum till 31 st August, 2021.

2. At the outset, Mr.Fernandes, the learned advocate

appearing on behalf of the Plaintiffs states that there is no caveat against

the arrest of the 1st Defendant - Vessel as per the endorsement made

today at 1.30 p.m. by the Section Officer of the Execution Department.

The Caveat warrant book against arrest is also presented to the Court

and the Court Associate confirms that there is no caveat entered against

the arrest of the 1st Defendant - Vessel. Mr.Fernandes has also brought

to my attention that the 1 st Defendant - Vessel has been arrested by this

Court on 3rd February, 2020 in Commercial Admiralty Suit (L) No. 6 of

2020.

3. The above Judges order has been moved Ex-parte after I

agree to grant circulation. Coming to the brief facts, as stated earlier, in

the present Suit, the Plaintiffs seeks judgment and decree against the

Defendants and the arrest sequestration, condemnation and sale of the

1st Defendant-Vessel for securing and/or satisfying the Plaintiffs'

aggregate claim of Rs. 38,32,497.48/-. This claim arises out of the

invoices raised by the Plaintiffs' Marine Department as well as the

Plaintiffs' Traffic Department. In other words, these are the dues of the

Mumbai Port Trust and who is the Plaintiff.

Ganesh Lokhande                         2/4
                                                    2-JO-189-2021.doc

4. Having heard, Mr. Fernandes and perusing the plaint, I am

satisfied that prima-facie the present claim would be a maritime claim

as defined in Section 4 (1) (n) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and

Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017. In these circumstances, I find

that the Plaintiff has made out a strong prima-facie case. The balance of

convenience also lies with the Plaintiff to whom in my view, almost

irreversible to prejudice would be caused, if the reliefs were to be

denied. Accordingly, I order and direct the arrest of the 1 st Defendant -

Vessel M.V.Brahmaputra Dolphin (IMO No. 7608916) along with her

hull, gear, tackle, engines, machinery, bunkers, apparel, furniture,

fixtures and all appurtenances, plant and machinery currently at

anchorage at the Port of Mumbai or wherever in the territorial waters of

India until satisfaction of the Plaintiff's claim to the extent of

Rs.38,32,497.48/-.

5. As mentioned earlier, there is also a Judges order. I have

seen the Judges order and it seems to be in a proper form and with the

appropriate contents. I accept the undertakings given in the Judges

order as undertakings given to the Court. I therefore make an order in

terms of the Judges order in the facts and circumstances of the

present case and which is signed separately. If the sum of

Rs.38,32,497.48/- is deposited as mentioned in the Judges order, the 1 st

Ganesh Lokhande 3/4 2-JO-189-2021.doc

Defendant - Vessel shall be at liberty to file an Application for vacating

the order of arrest.

6. After service of this order of arrest, if the arrested vessel is

not released by furnishing security or bail amount within a period of six

weeks of service, or an application for vacating the order of arrest is not

filed, 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 made by the Plaintiffs, the office 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.

7. The Plaintiffs are at liberty to forward a copy of the

communication from the Sheriff of Mumbai forwarding this order by

fax/emails/ hand delivery /RPAD to Customs Authorities.

8. Warrant of arrest shall be served on the Defendant-Vessel

within a period of eight weeks from the passing of this order.

9. All parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order

digitally signed by the Personal Assistant /Private Secretary/Associate

of this Court.

                                             (B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.)

Ganesh Lokhande                             4/4