JUDGMENT - DESHPANDE D.G., J.:---The plaintiffs company has filed this suit originally against M.V. Anny L for the sum of US Dollars 91,902.81 with interest, costs etc. According to the plaintiffs, their claim was in respect of supply of bunkers to the defendants vessel. It has been further stated in the plaint that the vessel M.V. Anny L was previously known as Alexia S. but from 20th December, 1995 the ownership of Alexia S was changed from the previous owners Navabet Shipping Limited to Sokena Shipping Limited who were subsequently joined as defendant No. 2 by way of amendment of the plaint.

2. In the written statement the defendants raised different objections to the claim of the plaintiffs. Similarly, objections regarding tenability of the suit were also raised, and therefore, consequently following issues were framed by the Court:-

ISSUES:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that any request for supply of bunkers was received by them from the Master of the defendant vessel?

2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they supplied bunkers to the defendant vessel?

3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled to recover the price of any bunkers supplied to the defendant vessel by third parties?

4. Whether the plaintiffs prove that no part of their claim has been paid?

5. Whether defendant No. 2 proves that there was a change in the ownership of the vessel after the dates of supply of bunkers to the said vessel?

6. Whether the plaintiffs prove that in respect of their claim they have a maritime lien on the defendant vessel which survives change of ownership of the defendant vessel?

7. Whether the defendants prove that the proper law of the contract for the supply of bunkers is Greek law and/or the law of the Republic of Malta?

8. Whether the defendants prove that under the proper law applicable to the contract, the plaintiffs are not entitled to a maritime lien in respect to their claim which survives a change of ownership of the defendant vessel?

9. Whether Navabet Shipping Ltd. the previous owners of the defendant vessel and the physical supplier of the bunkers, are proper and/or necessary parties?

10. If yes, whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of a necessary party?

11. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled to interest and if so, at what rate and from what date?

12. What order and decree?

3. It appears that thereafter on insistence of the defendants Issue No. 6 was agreed to be decided as preliminary issue, and therefore, arguments of the Advocates for the plaintiffs and defendants were heard by me on that issues which is as follows:-

Issue No. 6:-

"Whether the plaintiffs prove that in respect of their claim they have a maritime lien on the defendant vessel which survives a change of ownership of the defendant vessel?"

4. It was contended by the Counsel for the defendants that so far as claim of the plaintiffs for supply of bunkers is concerned, the same was not and could not be considered as maritime liens, and therefore, this issue is required to be answered in the affirmative consequently resulting in dismissal of the suit.

5. On the other hand it was contended by the Counsel for the plaintiffs that this issue has already been covered by the judgment of this Court reported in A.I.R. 1995 Bom. 281 (Sigma Coatings BV v. M.V. Agios Nikolaos)1, and reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 1014 (M.V. Elizabeth v. Harwan Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd., Goa)2.

6. As against this, it was contended by Mr. Pratap, learned Counsel for the defendants that both these judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court are not applicable in the present case as they are neither the ratio decidendi nor obiter dicta, and therefore, are not binding on this Court. Mr. Pratap, the learned Counsel for the defendants contended that as to what constitutes maritime lien and what is covered by maritime lien was not an issue open before the Supr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document