Bombay High Court
Kge Global Logistics Llc Fz vs Mv Wen Shan (Imo No. 9311804) on 2 February, 2024
Author: R.I. Chagla
Bench: R.I. Chagla
501-JO(L) 3717.24 in COMAS(L) 3681.24.doc
Kavita S.J.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
ADMIRALTY & VICE-ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION
JUDGES ORDER (L) NO. 3717 OF 2024
IN
COMMERCIAL ADMIRALTY SUIT (L) NO. 3681 OF 2024
KGE GLOBAL LOGISTICS LLC FZ ... Plaintiff
VERSUS
m.v. WEN SHAN (IMO No. 9311804) ...Defendants
-----
Mr. Prathamesh Kamath a/w Mr. Abhimanyu Singh i/b Ms. Priyanka
Patel, Advocates for the Plaintiff.
-----
CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA, J.
DATED : 2nd FEBRUARY, 2024.
ORDER:
1. Matter mentioned. Not on Board. Taken on Board.
2. The above Suit, along with Judge's Order, has been moved
ex- parte after the production was granted. The urgent relief sought
KAVITA
SUSHIL
JADHAV is the arrest of the Defendant Vessel. According to the Plaintiff, it has
an irrefutable claim against the Defendant Vessel. If the Defendant
501-JO(L) 3717.24 in COMAS(L) 3681.24.doc
Vessel sails away, the present proceedings will be rendered
infructuous.
3. The present suit is for judgment and decree against the
Defendant Vessel and the arrest, sequestration, condemnation, and
sale of the Defendant No.1 Vessel for securing and/or satisfying the
Plaintiff's aggregate claim of US$ 128,255. The Plaintiff has also
claimed interest calculated at the rate of 18 % per annum from the
date of filing of the suit till payment and/ or realization as per the
particulars of claim which is at Exhibit - K. The urgent relief sought
for by the Plaintiff in the suit is arrest of the Defendant Vessel.
4. The claim in the Suit arises under the Fixture Note /
Charterparty dated 10.08.2023, on account of the failure of the
Defendant Vessels owners to provide a seaworthy vessel as well as
failure of Defendant vessel and her owners to perform their respective
obligations under the said Charterparty due to which the Plaintiff has
suffered loss of freight / earnings and is facing claims from its
Charterer. The present Suit is to seek enforcement of maritime claim to
recover the losses incurred by the Plaintiff as well as indemnity for
claims made by Plaintiff's Charterer.
501-JO(L) 3717.24 in COMAS(L) 3681.24.doc
5. I have heard Mr. Kamat, the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the Plaintiff and also considered the averments made
in the Plaint. Perusing the Plaint and the annexures a prima facie
case for arrest of the Defendant Vessel is made out. In the present
case, prima facie, the claim in the Plaint is a maritime claim as
defined in section 4 (l) (h) and (n) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction
and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017. The Plaintiff is
entitled to move against Defendant Vessel under Section 5 of the
Act.
6. In these circumstances, I find there is no doubt that there
is a cause of action in favour of the Plaintiff. The Defendant Vessel
being at the Mumbai Port is within the Admiralty jurisdiction of
this Court. The balance of convenience lies with the Plaintiff to
whom, in my view, almost irreversible prejudice would be caused
if reliefs were to be denied.
7. Advocate for the Plaintiff states that the Registry has
produced the Caveat Register, and there is no valid caveat against
arrest with respect to the Defendant Vessel.
501-JO(L) 3717.24 in COMAS(L) 3681.24.doc
8. Accordingly, I order and direct the arrest of the Defendant
Vessel, along with her hull, engines, gears, tackles, bunkers
machinery, apparel, plant, furniture, fixtures, appurtenances and
paraphernalia, at present at Mumbai port until the satisfaction of the
Plaintiff's claim.
9. I have seen the Judge's Order, and it seems to me 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 and is signed separately.
10. In view of the urgency, Warrant of Arrest is dispense with.
11. The Plaintiff is at liberty to forward a copy of the
communication from the office of the Sheriff of Mumbai along with a
copy of this order by Fax/email/hand delivery/ RPAD to the Port and
Customs authorities.
12. After service of this Order of arrest, if the Defendant Vessel is
not released by furnishing security or bail amount within eight (8)
weeks of service, or an application for vacating the order of arrest is
501-JO(L) 3717.24 in COMAS(L) 3681.24.doc
not filed, or the Defendant Vessel is found abandoned by the person
in-charge of the Defendant 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 fourteen (14) days from the
date of receiving communication from the Plaintiff's advocate or
from the date of knowledge of abandonment of the Defendant
Vessel.
13. Judge's Order is accepted and signed separately.
14. All parties to act on an authenticated copy of this Order.
[R.I. CHAGLA, J.]
