MODERN SHIPPING Vs. M V GEORGIA K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On hearing Mr.Jaimin R. Dave, learned advocate for Mr.Manav A. Mehta, learned advocate for the plaintiff and upon reading the plaint herein declared at Ahmedabad on the 4th April, 2017 filed by the learned advocate for the plaintiff herein and the affidavit of Mr.Rohit Parmar, the Power of Attorney-holder of the plaintiff above-named, affirmed on 4th April, 2017 and upon hearing learned counsel for the plaintiff and upon the plaintiff giving an undertaking in writing to the Registrar of this Court to pay such sums by way of damages as this Court may award as compensation in the event of the defendants and/or any party sustaining prejudice by this order, I do order that the Registrar of this Court do issue a warrant for the arrest of the defendant vessel, M.V.GEORGIA K, along with her hull, engines, gears, tackles, bunkers, machinery, apparel, plant furniture, equipments and all appurtenances, at present lying at the Port and Harbour of Kandla and that the Warrant of Arrest be executed at any time of the day or night or on Sundays or holidays and I do further order that the Port Officer at Kandla and the Customs Authorities at Kandla do effect the arrest, seizure or detention of the defendant vessel, M.V.GEORGIA K at the Port of Kandla or such other place wherever she may be within the territorial waters of India and I do further order that in the event of the defendant and/or those interested in her depositing in this Court a sum of Rs. 76,87,550/together with further interest thereon at the rate of 2% per month on Rs. 76,87,550/from the date of filing suit until payment the said Warrant of Arrest shall not be executed against the defendant vessel M.V.Georgia K.

(2.) Mr.Jaimin Dave, learned advocate for Mr.Manav A. Mehta, learned counsel for the plaintiff, submitted that the plaintiff entered in Charter Party Agreement dated 23rd January, 2017 with defendant No.3 for shipment of 12,000 MT of wooden products from Malaysia to Hodeidah. It is further submitted that defendant No.3 committed breach of such Charter Party by not lifting the cargo as agreed. It is submitted that on account of such breach, the plaintiff has suffered loss of profit to the tune of US$ 104500 and the plaintiff has initiated arbitration proceedings for recovery of the said amount. It is submitted that defendant No.3, being a typical chartering entity has no involvement in ownership of vessels, directly or indirectly, or in cargoes and therefore, is unlikely to possess any tangible assets other than bank accounts and bunkers which are held on board any vessels that defendant No.3 is currently operating under time charter. Therefore, pending the arbitration proceedings, it is necessary to secure the claim amount.

(3.) It is submitted by Mr.Dave that defendant No.1 is the vessel, which is under the Time Charter of defendant No.3. As per standard maritime practice, bunkers on board a vessel during the course of the time charter belongs to time charter. In other words, defendant No.2 Bunkers will be of the ownership of defendant No.3 which are on board of defendant No.1 vessel. Therefore, in order to safeguard the claim of the plaintiff in the Arbitration proceedings, defendants Nos.1 and 2 are required to be arrested.