Bombay High Court
Adsun Offshore Diving Contractors Pvt ... vs Osv Albatross 5 Imo No 9236808 on 16 August, 2024
Author: R.I. Chagla
Bench: R.I. Chagla
502-comasl-25691-2024.doc
jsn
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally
signed by
JITENDRA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
JITENDRA SHANKAR
SHANKAR
NIJASURE
NIJASURE
Date:
2024.08.16
IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
17:50:55
+0530
JUDGE'S ORDER (L) NO.25731 OF 2024
IN
COM ADMIRALTY SUIT (L) NO.25691 OF 2024
Adsun Offshore Diving Contractors Pvt. Ltd. ...Plaintiff
Versus
OSV Albatross 5 (IMO No9236808) ...Defendant
----------
Ashwin Shanker a/w Ram Jay Narayan, Advocates for the Plaintiff.
None for the Defendant.
----------
CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA J.
DATE : 16TH AUGUST, 2024.
ORDER :
1. The Plaintiff's Advocate has informed me that there is no valid/
active Caveat against Arrest of the Defendant Vessel entered in
the Caveat Warrant Book.
2. The above Judge's Order is moved ex-parte after circulation was
granted to the Plaintiff.
3. The urgent relief sought for by the Plaintiff in the suit is arrest of
the Defendant Vessel.
4. It is the Plaintiff's contention that it has claims against the
Defendant Vessel and her Owners, i.e., Manna Shipping &
Logistics Pvt. Ltd. for breach of the terms of a Supplytime
Charterparty dated 10.07.2024 and the Addendum dated
17.07.2024 between the Plaintiff and the Owners. The Plaintiff
502-comasl-25691-2024.doc
submits that this breach by the Owners of the Defendant Vessel
has, inter alia, caused a monetary loss to the Plaintiff.
5. On this basis the Plaintiff seeks a judgment and decree against
the Defendant Vessel, and the arrest, sequestration,
condemnation and sale of the Defendant Vessel, for securing
and/ or satisfying its principal claim of and ₹10,70,17,952 along
with ₹ 25,00,000 of legal costs. The Plaintiff also claims interest.
6. The Plaintiff's case is that it entered into a BIMCO SUPPLYTIME
2005 Charterparty dated 10.07.2024 with the Owners of the
Defendant Vessel, one Manna Shipping & Logistics Pvt. Ltd.
("Owners") for the charter of the Defendant Vessel. Under this
Supplytime Charterparty the Owners were supposed to deliver
the Defendant Vessel on/before 23.07.2024. On 26.07.2024, the
Owners intimated the Plaintiff of its inability to supply the
Defendant Vessel, and sought to terminate the Supplytime
Charterparty. The Owners and the Plaintiff thereafter entered
into Addendum dated 17.07.2024 wherein the delivery date and
cancelling date under the Supplytime Charterpaty were pushed
to 31.07.2024 and 01.08.2024 respectively.
7. It is submitted by the Plaintiff that the Owners' breach of the
Supplytime Charterparty has caused the Plaintiff a monetary loss
502-comasl-25691-2024.doc
- wherein the Plaintiff is compelled to hire another substitute
vessel at a much higher rate and is also exposed to claims for
damages from its other contractual counterparts(s) to whom the
Plaintiff was supposed to deliver the Defendant Vessel to.
8. Against the backdrop of the foregoing, the Plaintiff claims sums
of INR 10,70,17,952.00 it expects to incurs for fixing a
substitute vessel. Lastly, the Plaintiff reserves liberty to amend its
claim after it fixes a substitute vessel since it will then be in a
position to accurately quantify its losses.
9. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Plaintiff and have considered the averments made in the plaint
and the documents produced with the Plaint. On going through
the Plaint and exhibits, I find that a prima facie case for arrest of
the Defendant Vessel is made out.
10. The Plaintiff's claims arises on account of a breach of a
Charterparty between the Plaintiff and the Owner of the
Defendant Vessel due to which the Plaintiff is unable to deploy
the Defendant Vessel for its other contracted works at Hazira.
The Plaintiff's claims are therefore 'maritime claims' as
contemplated by Section 4(1)(h), and of the Admiralty
(Jurisdiction & Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017. The
502-comasl-25691-2024.doc
right to arrest the Defendant Vessel for the aforesaid maritime
claims is to be found in Section 5(1) of the Act.
11. In these circumstances, I find that there is a cause of action in
favour of the Plaintiff. I also find that since the Defendant Vessel
is at Mumbai Port she is within the admiralty jurisdiction of this
Court. As stated above, the Plaintiff has made out a prima facie
case. I am also satisfied 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 are denied. Accordingly, I
order and direct the arrest of the Defendant Vessel OSV
ALBATROSS 5 (IMO No. 9236808), 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.
12. I have seen the Judge's Order and it seems to be in the 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 in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
13. Issuance of Warrant of Arrest is dispensed with.
502-comasl-25691-2024.doc
14. After service of this order of arrest, if the Defendant Vessel is not
released by furnishing security or bail amount or an application
for vacating the order of arrest is not filed within 45 days, or the
vessel is found abandoned by the person in-charge of her or her
owner, or if she is found unmanned, then, in such an event, on a
communication being sent by the Plaintiff, the office of the
Sheriff of Mumbai shall present a Sheriff's report for auctioning
the Defendant Vessel within 14 days from the date of receiving
such communication. The Plaintiff is also entitled to file an
application for sale of the vessel even prior to the 45 days, if it is
apparent that the owner of the Defendant Vessel will not be
furnishing security or filing an application for vacating the order
of arrest or if the circumstances are such that the sale of the
Defendant Vessel is justified.
15. All concerned, including Port and Customs Authorities will act
on production of an authenticated copy of this order (signed by
the Associate/ Private Secretary of this Court) sent to them by
email by the Plaintiff's advocate.
[ R.I. CHAGLA J. ]
