Welldone Integrated Services Pvt Ltd v. M.V. Ocean Turquoise (Imo 9686948) And ANR

Sharayu Khot.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ADMIRALTY & VICE-ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION COMMERCIAL ADMIRALTY SUIT (L) NO. 6456 OF 2024 WITH JUDGE'S ORDER NO. 37 OF 2024 Welldone Integrated Services Pvt. Ltd.

...Plaintiff

Versus

M.V. Ocean Turquoise (IMO 9686948) & Anr.

...Defendants ---------- Mr. Manoj Khatri a/w. Arnab Ghosh for the Plaintiff. ---------- CORAM :R.I. CHAGLA J DATE : 23 February 2024 ORDER :

1.

Mentioned. Not on Board. Taken on Production Board. 2.

The above Suit, along with Judge's Order, has been moved ex-parte after the circulation was granted. The urgent relief SHARAYU PANDURANG KHOT sought is the arrest of the Defendant No.1 Vessel as there is an Digitally signed by SHARAYU PANDURANG KHOT Date:

2024.02.23 16:49:12 +0530 apprehension that Defendant No.2, the owner of Defendant No.1 vessel may sell the vessel. According to the Plaintiff, it has an 1/5

irrefutable claim against the Defendant No.1 Vessel. If the Defendant No.1 Vessel is sold, the present proceedings will be rendered infructuous.

3.

Coming to the brief facts, the present suit is for judgment and decree against the Defendant No.1 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 Rs. 76,16,327.44 (Rupees Seventy-Six Lakh Sixteen Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty-Seven and Forty-Four Paise) along with interest calculated at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the Suit till the date of the decree and further interest at the same rate from the date of the decree till payment/realization. The claim in the Suit arises out of supplies made and services rendered to Defendant No.1 Vessel as well as her sister vessels. The supplies / services were made to the faith and credit of the Defendant Nos. 2. Defendant No.

1 vessel as well as her sister vessels have used and/or benefitted from the said supplies/ services rendered by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has, however, been only partly paid in respect of the same.

Defendant No.1 Vessel.

4.

I have heard 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 No.1 Vessel is made out. In the present case, prima facie, the claim in the Plaint is a maritime claim as defined in Section 4(1)(l) read with Section 5(2) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017.

5.

In these circumstances, I find there is no doubt that there is a cause of action in favour of the Plaintiff and that the Defendant No.1 Vessel being at Mumbai port is within the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court. The Plaintiff has made out an ample prima facie case. 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.

6.

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 No.1 Vessel. 3/5

7.

Accordingly, I order and direct the arrest of the Defendant No.1 Vessel, along with her hull, engines, gears, tackles, bunkers machinery, apparel, plant, furniture, fixtures, appurtenances and paraphernalia, plant and machinery at present at Mumbai port until the satisfaction of the Plaintiff's claim. 8.

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. 9.

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.

10.

After service of this Order of arrest, if the arrested 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 not filed, or the vessel is found abandoned by the person in4/5

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 fourteen (14) days from the date of receiving communication from the Plaintiff's advocate or from the date of knowledge of abandonment of vessel.

11.

The Plaintiff prays for the Warrant of arrest of the Defendant No. 1 Vessel to be dispensed with. The said request is accepted.

12.

All parties to act on an authenticated copy of this Order.

[R.I. CHAGLA J.] 5/5