GEOWAVE COMMANDER Vs. GEOWAVE COMMANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Notice of Motion is taken out by the Applicant/Original Defendant - GEOWAVE COMMANDER ("GC") for vacating ex parte order of its arrest dated 15th March 2013.

(2.) THE Applicant/Defendant has pointed out that the Plaintiff's specific case in the Plaint is that they have a claim against Reflect Geophysical Pte. Ltd. ("Reflect") for unpaid charter hire under a Charterparty dated 1st October 2012 concerning the Plaintiff's vessel Orion Laxmi ("OL") which was chartered to Reflect as time charterer and further Reflect is the owner of the Defendant Vessel - GC and consequently the Plaintiff alleged that it is entitled to arrest the Defendant Vessel - GC. According to the Defendant, the entire claim of the Plaintiff rests on the allegation that the Defendant vessel is owned by Reflect which is incorrect. The Defendant vessel is owned by Master and Commander AS, Norway, a Company incorporated under the Laws of Norway and not Reflect. It is submitted that the Plaintiff admittedly has no claim against Master and Commander AS and is not entitled to arrest the Defendant vessel. The Defendant vessel was chartered by its owner, Master and Commander AS to Reflect under a Bareboat Charterparty dated 29th June 2012 for a period of three years at a charter hire rate of US $ 14,090.00 per day. According to the Applicant/Original Defendant, there are several blatantly false, misleading and incorrect statements made in the Plaint, in particular that the Plaintiff corresponded with the owners of the Defendant vessel and that Mr. Mathew is the CEO of the Owners (Paragraph 8); that the Defendants were obliged to pay charter hire; that the Defendants confirmed that the Plaintiff could take legal action (Paragraph 9); that the Defendants failed and neglected to pay the Plaintiff's invoices (Paragraph 10); that the Defendant vessel failed to pay charter hire (Paragraph 11). It is therefore submitted in the application that the Plaintiff has no right of arrest of the Defendant vessel GC which is not owned by Reflect but only chartered by them as stated above.

(3.) MR . Pratap, the Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Applicant/Defendant has submitted that the specific case with which the Plaintiff has approached this Court as set out in the Plaint is that Reflect is the owner of the Defendant vessel (Paragraph 3); Defendant vessel failed to pay charter hire to the Plaintiff (Paragraphs 10 and 11) and Plaintiff's claim is a maritime claim against the Defendant vessel (Paragraph 11). It is submitted that each of these statements is false to the knowledge of the Plaintiff with a view to mislead this Court into granting an ex parte order of arrest dated 15th March 2013 of the Defendant vessel GC. It is submitted that Reflect is not the owner of the Defendant vessel GC which is owned by Master and Commander AS, Norway. It is Reflect who has failed to pay charter hire to the Plaintiff under charterparty dated 1st October 2012 for the vessel OL and not the Defendant vessel GC. The Plaintiff's maritime claim is therefore against Reflect and arises under a charterparty between the Plaintiff and Reflect for charter of the vessel OL. It is not a maritime claim against the Defendant vessel. Mr. Pratap submitted that on this ground alone, the ex parte order of arrest is liable to be and should be vacated without considering the merits as the Plaintiff has come to Court with a false case and made false, incorrect and misleading statements in the plaint and has no right to be heard.