MAHINDRA VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS LIMITED Vs. OWNERS AND PARTIES INTERESTED IN THE VESSEL MV HAN XIN EMO 9125889}

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This affidavit of arrest has been Med in an admiralty auit fled by the plaintiff praying for, inter alia, arrest af the defendant veasel, M? Han Xin, flying the flag of Hong Keng. I am told that the said veese! is presently ying at the Kolkata Port, within the Admiralty Jurisdiction of this Court.

(2.) After hearing learned Counsel for the phantiff, in view af the urgency mvolved, 1 dispense with the requirement of camplying with Section 124 of the Commercial Courts Act and amit the plaint subject te scrutiny.

(3.) Mr. S.K. Bajoma, loarned Advocair-on-Recard for the plaintif is appointed Receiver for the purpose of paying deficit Quurt fees within a week _. the date when mortedey in the Court work resumes. in default of such ior whadl Stared dismissed gutnmationliy geen, the auk sovd er anh witheusr farther reference to Court, The plainte? clelne to have enterert inte a eaniract af carriage with the datduwlant: wease? for carrying a comsignment of gnods campristvar Mil. aimth? chairstfaeed Press Line from Nobe i: dapat to Miuanbed, india. The plsves that the goods were loaded om board the defencant vessel at Kobe in perfect vomditinn and the Master of the vesact being satisfied with the condition of the goods igsiect "clesux* BiH af Lading. However, when the goods were diacharged at the Port af Miambai, ii was noticed that a substantial portion of the cunsignment was damaged. Various surveys have been undertaken by the plainii? and the plaintuf assesses the loss suffered by reason of the daxniage to the goods al approximately [email protected] crores. The plaintiff aleo clades interest thereon and in the plaint the plaintiff has claimed a decree for about Rs. 75.34 crores, The plaintiffs cham for compensation has been rejected by the defendants. It is submitted that the owners of the said vessel who are responsible for the darnage to the concerned goods have no other pragerty in incha and in the event the said vessel is permitted to sail away from witht: the junsdiction of this country, she is unlikely te return te the Indian territeral waters in fature. Hence, arrest of the vessel is prayed for. There is no doubt that the claim of the plaintit is a meritiee claimf within the meaning of Section 4 of the Admiralty (urisdiction ard Settlement af Maritime Claims} Act, 2017, Considering the materials an record, | am af the view that the plaintiff has made out a prima feele case and the balance of fag weasel which is othemvise Hkely te leave Indian territorial waters within: fhe Hert few days.