Bombay High Court
Tangar Ship Management Pvt. Ltd vs Mv Seastar Amba One (Imo No. 9302322) on 1 April, 2024
Author: R.I. Chagla
Bench: R.I. Chagla
501-jo-60-2024.doc
jsn
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ADMIRALTY AND VICE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION
IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
JUDGE'S ORDER NO.60 OF 2024
IN
COM ADMIRALTY SUIT (L) NO.10984 OF 2024
Tangar Ship Management Pvt. Ltd. ...Plaintiff
Versus
MV Seastar Amba One (IMO No.9302322) & ...Defendants
Anr.
----------
Prathamesh Kamat, i/b. Apurva Mehta (Pohonerkar) for the Plaintiff.
----------
CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA J.
DATE : 1ST APRIL, 2024.
ORDER :
1. Mentioned. Not on board. Taken on board.
2. Mr. Kamat, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff has
informed the Court that there is no valid/active caveat against the
arrest of the Defendant Vessel in the caveat warrant book. The
caveat book is produced and so is a praecipe with an endorsement
from the Execution Department that there are no valid caveats as
on 2.00 pm.
501-jo-60-2024.doc
3. The Plaintiff has filed the Suit for a judgment and decree against
Defendants and arrest, sequestration, condemnation and sale of
the Defendant No. 1 Vessel for securing and/or satisfying the
Plaintiff's claim in the sum of Rs. Rs. 60,08,501/- (Indian Rupees
Sixty Lakhs Eight Thousand Five Hundred and One only, along
with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum on the principal
claim amount of Rs. 35,44,246/- from 26 th March 2024 till
payment/realization, for crew wages and manning agency fees in
respect of Defendant no. 1 vessel. It is the Plaintiff's case that their
invoices towards crew wages and manning agency fees have
remained unpaid by Defendant no. 2, who are the Owners of
Defendant No. 1 vessel despite acknowledging the debt. The
Plaintiff's claim is a maritime claim under Section 4(1)(p) and
Section 4(1)(t) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of
Maritime Claims) Act, 2017.
4. I have heard Mr. Kamat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the Plaintiff and also considered the averments made in the Plaint.
On going through the Plaint and the annexures thereto, I find that
a prima facie case for arrest of the Defendant Vessel is made out.
5. The claim in the present Suit is a maritime claim as contemplated
in Section 4(1)(p) and Section 4 (1)(t) of the Admiralty
501-jo-60-2024.doc
(Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017. The
vessel is liable to be arrested under Section 5(1)(a) read with
Section 5(2) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of
Maritime Claims) Act, 2017. I also find that the balance of
convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiff to whom irreversible
prejudice would be caused if the reliefs sought in the Judge's
Order were to be denied.
6. In view of the facts averted to earlier, I find that there is a cause of
action in favour of the Plaintiff and that the Defendant Vessel
being at the port and harbour of Mumbai Port, i.e. within the
admiralty jurisdiction of the Court. In these circumstances, I order
and direct the arrest of the Defendant Vessel MV SEASTAR AMBA
ONE (IMO no.9302322), along with her hull, tackle, engines,
machinery, boats, bunkers, equipment, paraphernalia and other
appurtenances presently at the port and harbour of Mumbai Port,
or wherever she is within the territorial waters of India until the
satisfaction of the Plaintiff's claim.
7. I have seen the Judge's Order and it seems to be in proper form
and with the appropriate contents. I accept the undertakings
contained in the Judge's Order as undertakings to the Court. I,
therefore, make an order in terms of the Judge's Order and in the
501-jo-60-2024.doc
facts and circumstances of the present case and is signed
separately.
8. All concerned including the port and customs authorities will act
upon a copy of this order digitally signed by the Private Secretary/
Personal Assistant of this Court.
9. The Plaintiff is at liberty to forward a copy of a communication
from the Sheriff of Mumbai forwarding the digitally signed copy of
this order or an authenticated copy of this order, by
fax/email/hand delivery/ RPAD to all the concerned authorities.
Warrant of Arrest to be served upon the Defendant no. 1 vessel
within 4 weeks from today.
10. After execution of 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 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 being made by the Plaintiff, the office of the Sheriff of
Mumbai shall present a Sheriff's report for auctioning the vessel
within seven days from the date of receiving communication from
the Plaintiff's Advocate or from the date of knowledge of
abandonment of the vessel.
501-jo-60-2024.doc
11. All parties to act on a copy of this order digitally signed by the
Personal Assistant/Private Secretary/Associate of this Court or on
an authenticated copy of this order.
[ R.I. CHAGLA J. ]
