Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. In connection with the Civil Application filed in Admiralty Suit no.53 of 2018, learned advocate Mr.Bhatt submitted that going with the averments in the plaint of the above suit, the plaintiff has no C/AS/49/2018 IA ORDER maritime claim against the defendant vessel but the suit is filed for the claim against another vessel named M V Altus Uber by treating the defendant vessel as its sister vessel/ Ship. Mr. Bhatt submitted that the defendant is not the sister vessel of the vessel M V Altus Uber and cannot be considered as such, as the registered owners of both the vessels are different. Mr. Bhatt submitted that the applicants have placed on record documents showing ownership of both the vessels, whereas the plaintiff has relied only on xerox copy of the photographs of the defendant vessel, which cannot be considered as legal document for the ownership of vessel. Mr. Bhatt submitted that when the defendant vessel is not the sister vessel of M V Altus Uber, the plaintiff cannot maintain the suit against the defendant vessel, for its claim against the M V Altus Uber, in admiralty jurisdiction of this Court and therefore, the suit is required to be dismissed as not maintainable against the defendant Vessel. Mr. Bhatt submitted that even as per the case of the plaintiff, the Vessel M V Altus Uber is already under arrest by virtue of the order made by the Bombay High Court and therefore also, the plaintiff is not entitled to maintain its suit against the defendant Vessel.

23. In connection with the Civil Application filed in Admiralty Suit No.53 of 2018, learned advocate Mr. Prashant Kamat appearing with C/AS/49/2018 IA ORDER learned advocate Ms. Sheth for the plaintiff submitted that as averred in the plaint and as per the documents placed with the plaint, the plaintiffs supplied various provisions and the equipments to the vessel MV Altus Uber and the suit is filed against the defendant vessel, as it is sister vessel / ship of the vessel M V Altus Uber. Mr. Kamat submitted that the vessel MV Altus Uber and the defendant vessel both are owned by MEDS and, therefore, the suit against the defendant vessel is maintainable for maritime claim of the plaintiff against vessel MS Altus Uber. It is alternatively submitted that assuming that MEDS is a bareboat / demise charterer of MV Altus Uber, the plaintiff would still remain entitled to arrest of the diving vessel under Section 5(1)(b) of the Act as it is also the demise charterer of the defendant vessel. Mr. Kamat submitted that the Bombay High Court in the Admiralty Suit against the owner of MV Altus Uber has prima facie found that MEDS is the owner of MV Altus Uber as well as of the defendant vessel and on such prima facie finding recorded by the Bombay High Court, the MV Altus Uber was ordered to be arrested. Mr. Kamat submitted that once the plaintiff has made out prima facie case that it has maritime claim against M V Altus Uber and that the defendant vessel is the sister vessel / ship of the vessel MV Altus Uber, the suit could not be dismissed as not maintainable against the defendant vessel. Mr. Kamat also tendered written submissions.

57. In view of above, the Court finds that on none of the contentions raised and the grounds urged in the 'bunker group' and in the 'divers group' applications, the suits involving claims for supply of bunker and the suits involving claims for wages are required to be dismissed as not maintainable. Therefore, the first six applications are required to be rejected.

58. Then, remains the last application filed in Admiralty Suit No.53 C/AS/49/2018 IA ORDER of 2018. The Admiralty suit No.53 of 2018 is filed for arrest of the defendant vessel for recovery of the dues of the plaintiff for supply of various provisions to the vessel M V Altus Uber at the instance of MEDS. The plaintiff has averred in para-2 of the plaint of the suit that the defendant vessel and M V Altus Uber are sister vessels which are both owned by MEDS. However, it has come to light from the orders of Bombay High Court that MEDS claims to be a bareboat charterer of the vessel M V Altus Uber. It is further averred that both vessel are sister vessel as it is evident from the website of MEDS that both the vessels are owned by MEDS. The plaintiff has annexed screenshot of the website of MEDS.

59. The prime issue raised in the applications seeking dismissal of the suit as not maintainable is that since the defendant vessel is not the sister vessel of M V Altus Uber, its arrest is not permissible in exercise of powers under Section 5(2) of the Act for the maritime claim against MV Altus Uber. In support of the stand that the defendant vessel is not the sister vessel of MV Altus Uber, the applicants have placed on record the certificates of ownership of both the vessels. The certificates show the names of registered owners of both the vessels. As per the certificates of registration, the registered owner of defendant vessel is Altus Subsea-II AS, whereas, the registered owner of the vessel M V Altus Uber is Swordfish Shipco Limited. In the certificate for the vessel M V Altus Uber, MEDS is shown to be the bareboat charterer with termination period of charter party on 27th November, 2019. In the certificate issued as on 28th November, 2018 for defendant vessel, it is stated that mortgage of the defendant ship was granted by the owner to OPES Shipping Ltd., which was recorded on 28th November, 2018. The plaintiff has simply relied on screenshot (photographs) of the vessels and has not produced any document to show that the defendant vessel is either in the ownership of the MEDS or in the ownership of the same person who is shown to be owner of M V C/AS/49/2018 IA ORDER Altus Uber of which MEDS claims to be the charterer. As against the documents of registered ownership of the vessels, the plaintiff has failed to produce any reliable documentary evidence to prima facie establish that MEDS is owner of both the vessels.