Thar Camps Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S. Indus River Cruises Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. on 7 June, 2021
Additionally, Mr. Dholakia points out that Clause 29 of the Bareboat
Charter Agreements entitled the respondents to repossess the vessels
in the event of default, on the part of IRCPL, in paying Charter
Charges. Highlighting the obligations of the petitioner, as set out in
the VOMA, Mr. Dholakia submits that the petitioner was essentially
providing housekeeping services on the vessels. He expresses his
surprise at such a provider of housekeeping services obstructing
repossession, by the owners of the vessels, as permitted by the
Bareboat Charter Agreements. In such circumstances, the respondents
would seek to contend that Section 9 of the 1996 Act would not
authorise the passing of an order to their detriment. They rely, for the
purpose, on the judgement of this Court in P.E.C. Ltd v. Kandla
Energy & Chemicals Ltd25. They emphasise the contractual position
25
2016 SCC OnLine Del 5969
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:11.06.2021 OMP(I)(COMM) 243/2020 Page 32 of 82
06:54:32
that the VOMA was an agreement for managing and operating
vessels, executed between the petitioner and IRCPL, who did not own
the vessels. The respondents questioned the very permissibility of
attaching their assets as security to secure the use of IRCPL to the
petitioner. They liken the situation to pledging a hotel to secure the
dues owed by the owner of a restaurant, managed in space taken from
the hotel on rent, to the caterer. They echo the contention of IRCPL
that the petitioner has no lien over the vessels.