RUSHAB SHIP INTERNATIONAL LLC Vs. BUNKERS ONBOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the defendant no. 2 vessel was in the Port of Mumbai, the plaintiff filed this suit for arrest, sequestration, condemnation and sale of the bunkers on board defendant no.2 vessel and arrest and deposit of freight due for transportation of cargo that was laden on defendant no.2 at the port of Mumbai for securing the plaintiff's claim in arbitration proceedings for a sum of US$ 8,16,531.22, accrued interest of US$ 9,684.96 and costs in the sum of US$ 1,00,000/- for the present proceedings. The plaintiff after filing the suit invoked the arbitration proceedings under the charter party dated 16/03/2012. It is pertinent and very necessary to note that the plaintiff has not filed the present suit claiming that they are entitled to a decree in their favour against the defendants for any sum whatsoever. The suit is confined to seeking security pending arbitration. The prayers in the suit are as under:

(2.) By a judge's order no.7/2013, this Court on 7/01/2013 passed an order for arrest of bunkers on board the defendant no.2 vessel along with the freight due for transportation of the cargo laden. The defendant no. 3 moved an application to vacate the said order of arrest.

(3.) By the judgment pronounced on 4/02/2013 in Notice of Motion (L) No.59/2013, this Court was pleased to hold that an order arresting freight qua the cargo on board defendant no.2 vessel cannot be passed as the Court did not have any jurisdiction for the same. As regards the allegations qua the bunkers, since the Court came to a conclusion that the bunkers that were on board the defendant no.2 vessel which the defendant no.3 was entitled to use was worth only US$ 34,692.80 and the defendant no.3 offered to, without prejudice to its rights and contentions that bunkers on board defendant no.2 vessel cannot be arrested and/or proceeded against in admiralty jurisdiction, whilst keeping the issue open as to whether bunkers can be arrested or not, directed the defendant no.3 to furnish security only to the extent of US$ 34,692.80 being the value of bunkers owned by them on the date of the arrest, i.e., 7/01/2013. While disposing of the notice of motion, the Court did not grant the prayer of the defendant no.3 for damages since such prayer was not supported by adequate particulars. However, liberty to the defendant no.3 was granted to take out fresh notice of motion setting out all necessary particulars and seeking appropriate reliefs in this behalf. In view thereof, the defendant no.3 has taken out Notice of Motion no.735/2013 in which prayer clauses (a) and (b) read as under: