Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11 The Plaintiffs reliance on the High Court (O.S.) Rules, 1980 as vesting jurisdiction in this court to arrest bunkers is misconceived. The rules do not provide for arrest of bunkers. The rules do not provide for the manner in which the writ of summons or warrant of arrest is to be served in case of arrest of bunkers. Rule 946 on the contrary sets out the manner in which the warrant of arrest or writ of summons shall be served on the property against which the suit is brought. Rule 946 (2) deals with a situation where the property against which the suit is brought is ship or cargo on board. Rule 946 (3) refers to property against which the suit is brought is cargo which has been landed or transshipped. It also deals with a case where the cargo is in the custody of a person who will not permit access to it.

9. Appeal No. 92 of 2010 in Notice of Motion No.271 of 2010 in Admiralty Suit (Lodg.) No.87 of 2010 delivered on 23rd March, 2010

10. (2006) 4 SCC 620 Gauri Gaekwad 21 NMS-385-2014.doc as the case may be."

19 I also find support for the view against jurisdiction to arrest bunkers in African Eagle (supra). In that case, the Plaintiff sought arrest of freight and bunkers and the same was opposed by the Defendants on the ground that there is no jurisdiction to arrest freight and bunkers by way of proceedings in rem filed in the Admiralty Jurisdiction of this Court. The judgment in The African Eagle considers various statues, letters patent, High Court Rules, various judgments of the Apex Court (m.v. Elisabeth and m.v. Sea Success) as well as of this Hon'ble Court (11The Mariner IV vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited) and English law. The Court held the freight independently of vessel cannot be arrested. The arrest of bunker issue was left open as the Defendants had agreed to secure the claim upto the value of the bunker then available on board on without prejudice basis. The suit later was dismissed on other grounds. This judgment it was submitted on behalf of Defendant No.2 that there is no in rem jurisdiction to arrest bunkers. Although the judgment decided only the issue of arrest of freight, in my view it applies in equal measure to arrest of bunkers. Bunkers cannot be arrested independently of or with the ship as separate maritime property.

21 Therefore, whilst freight and cargo are considered as maritime property, bunkers are not and hence arrest of bunkers is not permissible irrespective of whether there is a maritime claim or lien against the vessel. Bunkers cannot be considered as maritime property independent of the ship. Bunkers are part of the ship and not capable of independent arrest. In the event the bunkers belong to the charterer against whom the Plaintiff has a maritime claim, the Plaintiff has no remedy by way of arrest of bunkers and the Plaintiff must pursue its claim against the charterer by adopting such other remedies as are available in law. Any alleged lien over the bunkers as provided in the bunker sales contract is of no consequence. It is a contractual lien at best and does not bind a person who is not a party to the contract. This does not give the Plaintiff any right to arrest the bunkers on board the vessel nor does it entitle the Plaintiff to proceed in rem against the bunkers.

28 On the Plaintiff's submission of equity and justice, the Plaintiff to seek such discretionary relief first has to establish that this Court has jurisdiction to arrest bunkers on board a ship in which the Plaintiff has failed. In my view, this Court does not have in rem jurisdiction to arrest bunkers independent of ship.