Bombay High Court
Saikrupa Cashew Company vs M. V. Diana Imo 9358058 on 19 January, 2024
Author: R.I. Chagla
Bench: R.I. Chagla
2024:BHC-OS:1352
501-JO(L) 2058.24 in COMAS(L) 2044.24.doc
Kavita S. J.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ADMIRALTY AND VICE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION
IN IT'S COMMERCIAL DIVISION
JUDGE'S ORDER NO (L) 2058 OF 2024
IN
COMM. ADMIRALTY SUIT (L) NO. 2044 OF 2024
M/s SAIKRUPA CASHEW COMPANY ...Plaintiff
V/s
M.V. DIANA (IMO 9358058) ...Defendant
------
Mr. V.J. Matthew, Senior Advocate a/w Sandhya Pillai, Vipin
Varghese, Sumedh Sonawane for the Plaintiff.
-------
CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA, J.
DATE : 19th JANUARY 2024.
ORDER:
1. Mentioned. Not on board. Taken on board.
2. The learned Advocate 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 statement is accepted as an undertaking given to the Court. KAVITA SUSHIL JADHAV Digitally signed
3. The above Judge's Order has been moved ex-parte after the by KAVITA SUSHIL JADHAV Date: 2024.01.19 17:34:29 +0530 circulation has been granted to the Plaintiff. The urgent relief sought 1/4 ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2024 23:34:24 ::: 501-JO(L) 2058.24 in COMAS(L) 2044.24.doc is the arrest of the Defendant Vessel. The suit has been filed for a decree in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendant for a sum of Rs.1,60,92,500/- (Rupees One Crore Sixty lakhs Ninety Two Thousand Five Hundred) as per the Particulars of the Claim together with the further interest at the rate of 12% p.a on the principal amount from the date of institution of the suit till payment / realization.
4. The Advocates for the Plaintiff have made a prima facie case for arrest of the Defendant Vessel. The Plaintiff has a maritime claim against the Defendant Vessel for illegally withholding the cargo belonging to the Plaintiff without issuing the Delivery Order.
5. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff and also considered the averments made in the Plaint. On going through the Plaint and annexures thereto, I find that a prima-facie case for the arrest of the Defendant Vessel is made out. The claim in the present suit is in the nature of a Maritime Claim as contemplated in Section 4(1)(f) and Section 4(1)(g) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017. I also find the balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiff to whom 2/4 ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2024 23:34:24 ::: 501-JO(L) 2058.24 in COMAS(L) 2044.24.doc 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 a cause of action in favour of the Plaintiff and that the Defendant vessel being at Mumbai Port is within the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the Court. In these circumstances, I order and direct the arrest of the Defendant Vessel M.V. DIANA (IMO 9358058), alongwith her hull tackle, engines, machinery, boats, bunkers, equipment, paraphernalia and other appurtenances presently at 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 a 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.
8. All concerned including the port and custom authorities will act upon a copy of this order digitally signed by the Private Secretary / Personal Assistant of this Court. 3/4 ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2024 23:34:24 :::
501-JO(L) 2058.24 in COMAS(L) 2044.24.doc
9. The Plaintiff is at liberty to forward a copy of this communication from the Sheriff of Mumbai forwarding a digitally signed copy of this order by fax/ email / hand delivery/ RPAD to all the concerned authorities.
10. The service of Warrant of Arrest is dispensed with.
11. After the arrest of the Defendant vessel, if the 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, the, 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 Plaintiffs advocate or from the date of knowledge of abandonment of the vessel.
12. All parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order digitally signed by the Private Secretary / Personal Assistant of this Court.
[R.I. CHAGLA, J.] 4/4 ::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2024 23:34:24 :::