M V LUCKY FIELD Vs. UNIVERSAL OIL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant vessel through its owners, Luckyfield Shipping Corp. S.A. Republic of Pannama, has filed this application for vacating and/or setting aside the order of arrest of the defendant vessel passed by this Court on 25.8.2006 and for discharge and return of the security furnished in the sum of US$ 252,233.95. The defendant vessel has also sought damages for wrongful arrest of the defendant vessel and/or security in respect of its claim for wrongful arrest.

(2.) IT is the case of the owners of the defendant vessel that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the owners of the defendant vessel in order for the plaintiff to maintain an action in personam for the arrest of the vessel to secure its claim. There was no in personam liability of the owners in respect of the claim made by the plaintiff and hence an action in rem would not lie for arrest of the owners' vessel. The order for supply of bunkers to the vessel was placed by IMC Maritime Group Inc. with the respondent. The said IMC Maritime Group Inc. are not the owners of the vessel but the time charterers of the vessel. The request for supply of the bunkers has come from the buyer and the buyer is identified as IMC Maritime Group Inc. and the physical suppliers was the plaintiff i.e. Universal Oil Ltd. It is clear from the order placed by the broker LQM Petroleum Services Inc. that the buyer is IMC Maritime Group Inc. who is liable to pay and will be making payment for the bunkers supplied. The plaintiff arranged for bunkers to the defendant vessel on 10.3.2006 as required under the contract. The invoice also indicates that the supply of bunkers has been made to the IMC Maritime Group Inc. C/o LQM Petroleum Services. The plaintiff pursued IMC Maritime Group Inc. for recovery of the price of bunkers supplied to the vessel. As IMC Maritime Group were experiencing financial difficulties, they requested for 60 day extension for payment of the invoice and offered to pay interest at the rate of 2%. The said IMC Maritime Group Inc. did not make payment and subsequently went into liquidation. In these circumstances broker LQM Petroleum Services suggested to plaintiff that they should contact the owners for commercial settlement.

(3.) IT is also the case of the defendant vessel that only thereafter for the first time on 18.5.2006 i.e. two months after supply of bunkers and only because the contracting party viz. the buyer IMC Maritime Group could not pay, the plaintiff approached the owners of the defendant vessel for payment. The said liability was promptly denied by the owners through their solicitors, who informed the plaintiff that their claim was against the contracting party IMC Maritime Group Inc.