Bombay High Court
388 vs Geowave Commander Flying The Flag Of on 10 May, 2013
Author: M.S. Sanklecha
Bench: Mohit S. Shah, M.S. Sanklecha
ASN 1/22 Appeal-208-13.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN ITS ADMIRALTY AND VICE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION
APPEAL (LODGING) NO.208 OF 2013
IN
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.889 OF 2013
IN
NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO.617 OF 2013
IN
ADMIRALTY SUIT (LODGING) NO. 230 OF 2013
Yusuf Abdul Gani Sole Proprietor of Jumbo
Offshore Enterprises carrying on business at
388, Carwford Market, Mumbai 400001. ..Appellant.
Versus
Geowave Commander flying the flag of
Singapore along with her hull, machinery, tackles,
engines, paraphernalia, presently
berthed/anchored at the Port of Mumbai within the
Territorial Waters of India. ..Respondent.
Mr.V.K.Rambhadran for the Appellant .
Mr. Prashant Pratap,Senior Advocate with Trupti Agarwal for the
Respondent.
CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND
M.S. SANKLECHA, J.
Reserved on : 30 April 2013
Pronounced on : 10 May 2013
::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2014 03:36:55 :::
ASN 2/22 Appeal-208-13.doc
JUDGMENT:(Per M.S. Sanklecha, J.) This is an appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 17 April 2013 vacating the arrest of the vessel Geowave Commender (GC), arrested by an exparte order on 15 March 2013. The arrest of the vessel GC was made at the instance of the appellant-plaintiff who claimed a maritime claim in respect of vessel GC arising out of charter party dated 1 October 2012 concerning its vessel Orion Laxmi (OL) which was chartered to Reflect Geophysical Pte Ltd. ("M/s.
Reflect").The vessel GC is owned by a Norwegian company M/s.
Master and Commander AS and given on bare boat charter to M/s. Reflect under a charter party dated 29 June 2012 for a period of three years. The impugned order dated 17 April 2010 vacating the arrest was passed on the application of owners of the vessel GC i. e. M/s. Master and Commander AS Norway.
2) The brief facts leading to the present appeal are as under:
a) On 29 June 2012, M/s. Master and Commander AS Norway the owner of vessel GC chartered the vessel GC under a charter party to M/s. Reflect on a bare boat charter for three years at hire of US$ 14090 per day. In terms of the charter party M/s. Reflect would redeliver vessel to the owner at the expiry of three years.
b) On 1 October 2012, the appellant company being owner of the vessel OL entered into time charter party agreement with M/s.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2014 03:36:55 :::
ASN 3/22 Appeal-208-13.doc Reflect in respect of its vessel OL for a period of 120 days. This was at a hire of US$ 4500 per day payable every 15 days in advance.
c) Between 16 November 2012 to 16 February 2013 various invoices were raised by the appellant on M/s. Reflect in respect of the time charter of the vessel OL to M/s. Reflect.
d) On 21 Feb. 2013 M/s. Reflect terminates the time charter party in respect of the vessel OL entered into with the appellant on the ground that the project has been delayed and hence the vessel OL is not required.
e) On 15 March 2013 the appellant applied to the court and had the respondent vessel GC arrested. This was on the basis of its claim that the vessel GC was owned by M/s. Reflect and that M/s.
Reflect had failed to pay charter hire charges in respect of its vessel OL.
Consequently, according to the appellant a maritime claim arose in respect of the vessel GC.
f) On 19 March 2013 the owners of the vessel GC M/s. Master and Commander AS Norway filed a Notice of Motion Lodging No.617 of 2012 in the present Admiralty Suit seeking to vacate the exparte order dated 15 March 2013 of arrest of its vessel GC.
::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2014 03:36:55 ::: ASN 4/22 Appeal-208-13.doc
g) On 15 April 2013 bare boat charter of the vessel GC under
the charter party dated 29 June 2012 to M/s. Reflect was terminated by M/s. Master and Commander AS.
h) On 17 April 2013 the impugned order was passed releasing the vessel GC from arrest.
i) Being aggrieved by the order dated 17 April 2013, the appellant is in appeal.
3) By the impugned order dated 17 April 2013 the learned Single Judge held that there is no maritime claim against the vessel GC.
Consequently its arrest was not justified. The impugned order held that maritime claim, if any, was for use of or hire of the vessel OL which was owned by the appellant and not in respect of vessel GC. Moreover, vessel GC was also not owned by M/s. Reflect. Therefore, the vessel GC could not be arrested for maritime claims arising in respect of vessel OL for breaches committed by M/s. Reflect. On the above basis, the Court held that no case for arrest of GC has been made out and the exparte order of arrest dated 15 March 2013 was vacated by allowing the notice of motion taken out by M/s. Master and Commander AS Norway.
::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2014 03:36:55 ::: ASN 5/22 Appeal-208-13.doc
4) The impugned order has while determining the issue
whether sufficient cause is made out for the arrest of the vessel GC has applied the provisions of the International Convention of Arrest of Ships, 1999. (Arrest Convention 1999). Though India is not a signatory to the Arrest Convention 1999, the Apex Court in the matter of Liverpool & London S.P. & I Association Limited v. M.V. Sea Success I and another reported in (2004) 9 SCC 512 while following its earlier decision in the matter of M.V. Elisabeth v. Harwan Investment and Trading reported in 1993 (supp.) (2) SCC 433 observed at Paragraph 59 as under:
"M.V. Elisabeth is an authority for the proposition that the changing global scenario should be kept in mind having regard to the fact that there does not exist any primary act touching the subject and in absence of any domestic legislation to the contrary;
if the 1952 Arrest Convention had been applied, although India was not a signatory thereto, there is obviously no reason as to why the 1999 Arrest Convention should not be applied."
Therefore, though India is not a signatory to the Arrest Convention 1999 the same has to be applied to determine whether a maritime claim has arisen and if yes whether the arrest of the vessel as sought is justified.
::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2014 03:36:55 ::: ASN 6/22 Appeal-208-13.doc
5) Before dealing with the submissions made by the Counsel
for the respective parties it may be convenient to reproduce that relevant Articles of the Arrest Convention 1999 as under :
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON ARREST OF SHIPS, 1999 Article- 1 Definitions For the purposes of this Convention;
1. "Maritime Claim" means a claim arising out of one or more of the following:
(a) to (e) .....
(f) any agreement relating to the use or hire of the ship, whether contained in a charter party or otherwise;
(g) to (k).....
(l) goods, materials, provisions, bunkers, equipment (including containers) supplied or services rendered to the ship for its operation,management, preservation or maintenance;
(m) to (v).....
2. "Arrest" means any detention or restriction on removal of a ship by order of a Court to secure a maritime claim, but does not include the seizure of a ship in execution or satisfaction of a judgment or other enforceable instrument;
3......
4. "Claimant" means any person asserting a maritime claim;
5......
ARTICLE-3:EXERCISE OF RIGHT OF ARREST
1. Arrest is permissible of any ship in respect of which a maritime claim is asserted if;
::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2014 03:36:55 :::ASN 7/22 Appeal-208-13.doc
(a) the person who owned the ship the time when the maritime claim arose is liable for the claim and is owner of the ship when the arrest is effected; or
(b) the demise charterer of the ship at the time when the maritime claim arose is liable for the claim and is demise charterer or owner of the ship when the arrest is effected; or
(c) the claim is based upon a mortgage or a "hypotheque" or a charge of the same nature on the ship;
or
(d) the claim relates to the ownership or possession of the ship ; or;
(e) the claim is against the owner, demise charterer, manager or operator of the ship and is secured by a maritime lien which is granted or arises under the law of the State where the arrest is applied for.
2. Arrest is also permissible of any other ship or ships which, when the arrest is effected, is or are owned by the person who is liable for the maritime claim and who was, when the claim arose;
(a) owner of the ship in respect of which the maritime claim arose; or
(b) demise charterer; time charterer or voyage charterer of that ship.
This provision does not apply to claims in respect of ownership or possession of a ship.
3. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 and 2 of this article, the arrest of a ship which is not owned by the person liable for the claim shall be permissible only if, under the law of the State where the arrest is applied for, a judgment in respect of that claim can be enforced against that ship by judicial or forced sale of that ship.
::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2014 03:36:55 ::: ASN 8/22 Appeal-208-13.doc
6) Mr. V. K. Ramabhadran, Counsel for the appellant in
support of the appeal makes the following submissions:
a) The impugned order proceeds on a fundamental error in holding that the bare boat charter of the vessel is different from a charter by demise. According to the appellant a bare boat charter is different from voyage charter and time charter of a vessel. A bare boat charter is in the nature of a demise charter and for all practical purposes such a demise charterer is the owner of the chartered vessel. This fundamental error has vitiated the impugned order. If the vessel GC is on demise charter to M/s. Reflect, the appellant is entitled to secure its maritime claim by arrest of vessel GC;
b) The appellant has a maritime claim against the vessel GC and are entitled to arrest the same even though there is no agreement for use or hire between the registered owners of the vessel GC and the appellant;
c) Once the vessel GC is held to be under demise charter to M/s. Reflect, then in terms of Article 3(1) (b) of the Arrest Convention 1999 the arrest of the vessel GC is warranted. The impugned order completely ignored the provisions of Article 3(1)(b) of the Arrest Convention 1999 while vacating the order of arrest of vessel GC; and ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2014 03:36:55 ::: ASN 9/22 Appeal-208-13.doc
d) In any event, in the alternative he submits that the vessel OL was given on time charter to M/s. Reflect to work as a support vessel to the vessel GC. Therefore, a maritime claim would arise in terms of Article 1(1)(l) of the Arrest Convention 1999. As the vessel OL rendered services to the vessel GC for the operations, management, preservations and maintenance of the vessel GC. In support, attention was drawn to charter party dated 1 October 2012 which not only provides for time charter of the vessel OL but also records that the vessel OL will be used for supply and emergency towing duty in support of the vessel GC;
7) As against the above, Mr. Pratap, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent vessel GC and its owners M/s. Master & Commander AS Norway in support of the impugned order made the following submission:
a) Before a vessel can be arrested under the Arrest Convention 1999, it is imperative for the persons seeking to arrest a vessel to establish that a maritime claim has arisen in connection with the ship, only on a maritime claim as provided in Article 1(1) of the Arrest Convention 1999 is established does the action in rem to arrest the offending ship which has caused harm, loss or damage can be proceeded ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2014 03:36:55 ::: ASN 10/22 Appeal-208-13.doc with on satisfaction of Article 3 of the Arrest Convention 1999.
b) In this case, the maritime claim asserted by the appellant is a maritime claim arising out of any agreement relating to the hire of ship as provided under Article 1(1)(f) of the Arrest Convention 1999. The agreement in the present case is not with regard to hire or use of the vessel GC but the agreement between M/s. Reflect and the appellant is with regard to use or hire of the vessel OL. Consequently, there is no maritime claim in existence against the respondent vessel GC for this court to exercise powers of arrest.
c) Article 3 of the Arrest Convention 1999 sets out the remedy by which a party is able to secure itself in respect of a maritime claim by arrest of the offending ship or any other ship owned by a person who is liable in respect of maritime claim. In this case the appellants have not proved the existence of any maritime claim in respect of the vessel GC, and the same was not even asserted before the learned Single Judge;
d) Therefore, there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to deal with Article 3(1) of the Arrest Convention 1999 as it was not the case of the appellant that they had any maritime claim against the vessel GC. So far as application of Article 3(2) of the Arrest Convention 1999 is concerned, the same is applicable only if the offending ship is ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2014 03:36:55 ::: ASN 11/22 Appeal-208-13.doc the ship in respect of which maritime claim has arisen and the arrested ship must be owned by the same owner. Therefore, it is his submission that as the vessel GC is not owned by M/s. Reflect, no question of arresting the same can arise for a maritime claim arising in respect of the vessel OL;
e) The issue whether vessel GC was on a demise charter and whether bare boat charter would itself make it demise charter are all questions which have no bearing to the facts of the present case. This is so as it is an admitted position that vessel GC is not owned by M/s.
Reflect and therefore, no occasion to arrest the same can arise and the type of charter of GC in favour of M/s. Reflect is of no consequence.
f) The case of a maritime claim arising under Article 1(1)(b) of the Arrest Convention Act 1999 is concerned, is new case put forward by the appellant at the hearing of the appeal and not urged even in the memo of appeal. Besides the vessel OL has not rendered any services to the vessel GC and therefore, Article 1(1)(l) of the Arrest Convention 1999 can have no application. In any event the agreement was for hire or use of the vessel OL and the maritime claim, if any, would be covered by Article 1(1)(f) of the Arrest Convention 1999.
::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2014 03:36:55 ::: ASN 12/22 Appeal-208-13.doc
g) Attention was invited to Article 3(3) of the Arrest
Convention 1999 to submit that any arrest of a ship which is not owned by the person liable for the maritime claim would be permissible only if under the laws of India the vessel could be sold, to satisfy the claim against a person who is not the owner of the arrested vessel. In this case the claim of the appellant is on M/s. Reflect who is admittedly not the owner of the vessel GC. It is also an undisputed position that M/s.
Reflect has not been joined as party defendant and therefore, the claim against M/s. Reflect ig would never be determined in the present proceedings. In such a case our Courts would not allow the asset of one party to be sold to satisfy the dues of an other party, even if permitted, unless the other party is before it and an amount is decreed against such other party.
8) We have considered the submissions. So far as objection of the appellant to the impugned order with regard to it holding that bare boat charter is not equivalent to a demise charter is concerned, the issue is no longer res-integra and stands answered in favour of the appellant.
This is in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Epoch Enterprises v. M. V. Won Fu reported in (2003) 1 SCC 305 wherein the Court has observed in Paragraph 36 as under:
::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2014 03:36:56 :::ASN 13/22 Appeal-208-13.doc "36. Even, however, assuming the agreement has in fact been entered into by the disponent owner, unless sufficient evidence is laid that the charter was by demise, whereby the possession and control of the vessel was given to the deponent owner, question of pursuing the cause of action against the vessel would not arise. Needless to add that charter parties are of three kinds: (a) demise charter; (b) voyage charter; and
(c) time charter. Whereas in demise charter, the vessel is given to the charterer who thereafter takes complete control of the vessel including manning the same, in both voyage charter and time charter, master and crew are engaged by the owner who act under the owner's instructions but under the charter's directions. Simply put, voyage charter is making available the vessel for use of carriage for a particular voyage and the time charter correspondingly is where the vessel is made available for carriage of cargo for a fixed period of time."
Similarly the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Flotec Maritime S.de. R.L. v. m.v. Nuveik in Notice of Motion No.1826 of 1996 in Admiralty Suit No.59 of 1996 rendered on 25th July 1996 held that bare boat charter is otherwise called demise charter. In the authoritative book "Maritime Law", Fifth Edition by Charistopher Hill it has been observed at page 177 as under:
"Demise charter parties (or "bare boat") being an expression coined by American oil companies) are agreements where under the charterer literally "takes over" the ship and has possession of it together with the right of management and control. One of the main features of such a charter party is that the charterer ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2014 03:36:56 ::: ASN 14/22 Appeal-208-13.doc has the right to engage and pay the Master and crew so that they are his, the charterers, employees for the period of the charter. The charterer will also be responsible for victualing and supplying the ship. Thus, the shipowner fades into the background, as it were, and merely collects his hire payments for the period of the charter. It is for these reasons that a demise or bare boat charter is virtually on a part with the owner of a ship in regard to the scope and range of his exposure to liabilities and thus a demise charterer would more advantageously obtain his liability or P & I insurance in a ship owner's P & I Association despite the fact that he is only a charterer and not the actual owner....
It would be fair to say that the nature of a demise or bare boat charter party is a lease of the ship, similar to a hire purchase arrangement, rather than a simple agreement for the hire or use of the ship."
9) However, even if bare boat charter is equivalent to demise charter the same would make no material difference to the issue in hand.
In fact, in the impugned order the Court has observed that the issue with regard to bare boat charter being a de facto owner of the ship has nothing to do with the facts of the present case. In the present facts the vessel GC is sought to be arrested on the basis that it is on bare boat charter with M/s. Reflect and the appellant has a maritime claim against M/s. Reflect in respect of another vessel namely OL. The mere fact that the de facto ownership of vessel GC is with M/s. Reflect would not ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2014 03:36:56 ::: ASN 15/22 Appeal-208-13.doc make M/s. Reflect the owner of the vessel GC. Thus the appellant cannot proceed against the vessel GC in respect of a Maritime claim arising from an agreement for use or hire of another vessel, in this case vessel OL. Therefore, the issue of bare boat charter being equivalent to demise charter and consequently M/s. Reflect is the de facto owner of the vessel GC yet M/s. Reflect is not de jure owner of the vessel GC so as to enable the appellant to arrest it. We find that the learned Single Judge has correctly held that the unreported decision dated 25 July 1996 in the matter of m.v. Nuevik (supra) has no application to the present case.
10) The claim of the appellant as stated in the plaint as well as in the Memorandum of appeal is that their maritime claim has arisen on account of Article 1(1)(f) of the Arrest Convention 1999 which provides that any claim arising out of any agreement in relation to use or hire of the ship would be a maritime claim. There is no dispute that there is no agreement for use or hire of the vessel GC entered into by the appellant. The appellant had only an agreement with M/s. Reflect dated 1 October 2012 in respect of its own vessel OL, for use or hire.
Therefore, there is no maritime claim which the appellant has against the ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2014 03:36:56 ::: ASN 16/22 Appeal-208-13.doc vessel GC in terms of Article 1(1)(f) of the Arrest Convention 1999.
Thus, there would be no occasion to arrest the vessel GC under Article 3(1)(b) of Arrest Convention 1999 as no maritime claim is asserted in the hands of the demise charterer with regard to the demised vessel. In this case maritime claim is not in respect of the vessel GC which is on demise charter to M/s. Reflect but in respect of vessel OL.
11) So far as Article 3(2) of the Arrest Convention 1999 is concerned the arrest is allowed of any other ship (other than offending ship in respect of which maritime claim has arisen) provided such other ship is owned by the person who is liable for the maritime claim and who was at the time when the claim arose either the owner or a charterer of the offending vessel. The maritime claim in this case has arisen on account of an agreement relating to the use or hire of vessel OL.
Consequently, the appellant can enforce/secure its maritime claim by arresting another vessel which is owned by M/s. Reflect. Admittedly the vessel GC is not owned by M/s. Reflect and mere de facto ownership of the vessel GC does not convert itself into de jure ownership.
Therefore, it is not permissible for the appellant to seek an arrest of the vessel GC under Article 3(2) of the Arrest Convention 1999.
::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2014 03:36:56 ::: ASN 17/22 Appeal-208-13.doc
12) In fact the issue of interpretation of Articles 3(1) and (2) of
Arrest Convention 1999 had arisen before this court in Admiralty Suit Lodging No.3547 of 2008 in the matter of Polestar Maritime Limited vs, M.C.QI Lin Men and ors. The decision was rendered on 22 December 2008.The facts in the above case were that the plaintiff was the owner of the vessel "Reva".The plaintiff agreed to sell vessel Reva to defendant No.2 and 3. Defendant No.3 who is the owner of the vessel MV. QL Lin Men agreed to be act as guarantor on behalf of defendant No.2.The plaintiff's case was that the purchase could not be completed on account of breaches committed by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and the plaintiff therefore asserted that a maritime claim has arisen in respect of the vessel Reva. The dispute with regard to contract of sale is covered under Article 1 (1)(v) of the Arrest Convention 1999 which provides that any dispute arising out of contract of sale of ship would give rise to maritime claim. This Court held that maritime claim had therefore arisen in connection with the sale of the ship Reva. Therefore, the maritime claim would be only against the vessel Reva and not against the vessel M.V. QI Lin Men which was owned by defendant No.3. As maritime claim is not being asserted against defendant No.1 vessel M.V. QI Lin Men, no occasion to apply Article 3(1) of the Arrest Convention 1999 ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2014 03:36:56 ::: ASN 18/22 Appeal-208-13.doc can arise. The plaintiff therein submitted that in any view of the matter in terms of Article 3(2) of Arrest Convention 1999 the arrest of another ship is permitted. However, the court negatived the contention of the plaintiff therein and held that the vessel M.V. QI Lin Men cannot be arrested. The Court held that the vessel Reva was neither owned or on charter by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 at the time when maritime claim arose. Therefore, there could be no occasion to recover maritime claim arising in respect of vessel Reva by arresting defendant No.1 vessel M.V. QI Lin Men which is owned by defendant No.3. In these circumstances, the learned Single Judge in the impugned order applied the ratio of the decision of this court in the matter of M.V.QI. Lin Men and ors. (supra) rendered on 22 December 2008 and concluded that the vessel GC cannot be arrested as no maritime claim has arisen in respect thereof nor is it a vessel owned by M/s. Reflect.
13) We find that in the plaint as also in the memo of appeal filed by the appellant the only ground taken to urge a maritime claim is that it arises out of use or hire of a ship and no ground is taken with regard to maritime claim arising out of rendering of services under Article 1(1)(l) of Arrest Convention 1999. The charter party dated 1 ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2014 03:36:56 ::: ASN 19/22 Appeal-208-13.doc October 2012 very clearly states in column 9 thereof that the vessel OL is given on hire to M/s. Reflect for a period of 120 days extend-able by one month. The use to which the vessel OL is to be put to is also specified in column 17 of the charter party to the effect that "standby supply and emergency towing duties within safe capabilities of the vessel and crew. Vessel will be working in support of Reflect Geophysical survey vessel Geowave Commander (GC)". Therefore, the agreement between M/s. Reflect and the appellant is clearly one for hire and use of OL and covered by Article 1(1)(f) of Arrest Convention 1999.
The scope of Article 1(1)(l) of Arrest Convention 1999 is in respect of supply goods to the vessel or supply of services to vessel. In this case no goods have been supplied to the vessel nor any services have been rendered to the vessel GC by the vessel OL. Article 1(1)(l) of the Arrest Convention 1999 would cover contract for supply of goods to the vessel or supply of services rendered to the vessel necessary for its operation, management, preservation or maintenance. Therefore, Article 1(1)(l) of Arrest Convention 1999 will not apply as the agreement between M/s.
Reflect and the appellant is for the use and hire of the vessel OL. We find support of our above understanding from the decision of the Court of Appeal in the matter of The "ESCHERSHEIM" reported in Lloyd's Law ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2014 03:36:56 ::: ASN 20/22 Appeal-208-13.doc Reports Page 81 wherein at Page 86 it has been held as under:
"In my opinion there is no good reason for excluding from the expression "an agreement for the use or hire of a ship" any agreement which an ordinary business man would regard as being within it. If which an ordinary business man would regard as being within it. If A and B make an agreement for A's ship to be used for carrying out any operation for B, I consider that the agreement is one for the use, if not for the hire of the ship. Thus an agreement for a ship to be employed for dredging, towing, cable laying and salvage would be an agreement for the use of the ship. But is an agreement for dredging or towage or cable laying or salvage an agreement for the use of a ship if there is no express reference in the agreement to any such use. If the operation can only be carried by means of a ship. I consider that the agreement must be one for the use or hire of a ship. A towage agreement would therefore always come within the words. Dredging or cable laying could conceivably be performed by other means but in the great majority of cases it would be so obvious that the use of a ship must be intended that this would be implied. ....
Consequently, we do not find any merit in the fresh contention raised before us by the appellant that they have rendered services to the vessel GC and consequently, maritime claim under Article 1(1)(l) of the Arrest Convention 1999 arises.
14) So far as the new issue raised by Mr. Pratap with regard to Article 3(3) of Arrest Convention 1999 is concerned, it is clearly ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2014 03:36:56 ::: ASN 21/22 Appeal-208-13.doc provided therein that the provisions of Article 3(1) and 3(2) of Arrest Convention 1999 would have no application for the reason that the vessel GC though not owned by M/s. Reflect can give rise to a maritime only if a claim is crystallized /decreed by the Court against M/s. Reflect.
The arrest of the vessel and its sale is only to provide that sale proceeds of the arrested vessel can be used to satisfy the decreed amounts. The object and purpose of selling the vessel belonging to M/s. Reflect would be to meet an ascertained claim against M/s. Reflect. In the absence of M/s. Reflect being a party to the present proceeding, the claim by the appellant against M/s. Reflect cannot be ascertained and judicially determined. Consequently, the vessel which is arrested and which is not shown to be belonging to M/s. Reflect cannot be sold to satisfy a claim against M/s. Reflect which has not been decreed. The absence of M/s.
Reflect as a party defendant in this proceeding would not lead to any claim being ascertained/determined as payable by M/s. Reflect.
Therefore, the Indian law will not permit the sale of the vessel to meet the debts of M/s. Reflect when neither M/s. Reflect nor any vessel belonging to M/s. Reflect is before the Court.
::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2014 03:36:56 ::: ASN 22/22 Appeal-208-13.doc
15) For the reasons indicated above, we find no merit in the
appeal and we uphold the order of the learned Single Judge.
16) Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
17) In view of the dismissal of the appeal, notice of motion
taken out by the appellant does not survive and the same is disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE
ig M.S. SANKLECHA, J.
::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2014 03:36:56 :::