Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. According to the plaintiff, all along it was informed by the 2nd defendant that the said 1st defendant vessel was trading between Sudan and Yemen, she would undergo special survey and she will eventually be employed by the Red Cross, pending attempts at raising funds for re-installing the P & I Club cover. According to the plaintiff, they later on learnt that the 1st defendant vessel was heading towards Alang (Indian territorial waters) for the purpose of demolition and/or sale and this action, on the part of the defendants, was in total breach of the Deed of Mortgage and Loan Agreement, which prohibited any sale, transfer or beaching of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff accordingly, addressed a notice dated 29th December, 2005, accepting the events of defaults and invoking their right under the Loan Agreement for early payment of the entire amount due under the Loan Agreement. The plaintiff says that the 2nd defendant, not standing with the said demand, refused and still refuses to pay the outstanding or any part of the loan. The plaintiff says and submits that as the 1st defendant is mortgaged with it for a sum of US $ 2,500,000/- only, the defendant No. 2 is not entitled to sell the property and the defendant No. 1 vessel deserves to be auctioned, sold and the sale proceeds deserve to be paid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff says and submits that this Court should exercise its Admiralty jurisdiction and in view of the real apprehension and imminent danger that the defendant No. 2 or any person claiming through or under them may try to create a third party interest in the defendant No. 1 vessel by transferring and/or otherwise by alienating, interim order of arrest deserves to be granted in favour of the plaintiff. It is submitted that the plaintiff's rights are absolute and indefeasible, the plaintiff had maritime lien/claim over the defendant No. 1 vessel, therefore, balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff, ad-interim relief as prayed for be granted. They also prayed in the plaint that a Court Receiver of the High Court be appointed as Receiver of the defendant no 1 vessel under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure including the power of sale with specific direction to obtain and deliver possession of the defendant No. 1 vessel to the plaintiff or their nominees without security or royalty, the 2nd defendant and any person or persons claiming through or under them be restrained by an order of injunction of this Court from selling, transferring encumbering or other wise alienating or creating any third party rights or interest in the 1st defendant vessel or entering into any agreement, they be restrained from beaching of the 1st defendant vessel, if the vessel is already beached by the time order is communicated, from seeking any demolition permission and/or if the permission is granted, from acting thereon in any manner, the defendants be restrained from acting in any manner that will prejudicially affect or hamper the plaintiff's security in the 1st defendant. According to the plaintiff, their suit is valued in the sum of Rs. 8,61,72,069.15 ps., at the current prevailing exchange rate - on the date of the suit. Along with the plaintiff, various documents were filed, the suit was taken up for hearing on 3rd January, 2006 itself.

5. On 3.1.2006, this Court recorded the submissions made by Mr. S.N. Soparkar that a Court Commissioner be appointed to ascertain the factual position of the defendant No. 1 and for ascertaining that whether any permission is granted by the concerned authority for commencing demolition. The Court accordingly issued an order of arrest and requested the Registrar General of this Court to appoint an officer of this Court not below the rank of Deputy Registrar to act as Court Commissioner. The Court also directed that the Port Authorities and Customs Authorities of Alang Port be informed of the present order passed by the Court. The Court granted interim injunction in terms of para 28[D][i] of the plaint. The plaintiff accordingly informed the authorities, and the Court Commissioner in accordance with the authority conferred upon him submitted his report.