The judgment established that the defendant was not personally liable for the bunkers supplied and that US law did not apply, impacting the plaintiff's claim and the existence of a maritime lien.

1. This is an application taken out by defendant no. 3 who is the owner of the first defendant vessel-m.v. Flag Mersinidi (the said vessel) to set aside/vacate the order of arrest of the said vessel which was passed on 18.09.2012 and consequently for return of the bank guarantee furnished as security towards the plaintiff's claim.

2. The plaintiff's claim is for money due under a contract for the supply of bunkers to the said vessel at Tianjin, China. It is the case of the plaintiff that they had supplied a quantity of 448.800 mt of marine fuel-(MF)-380 to the said vessel. The plaintiff's claim is for US$ 3,08,774/- being the costs of the bunker supplied plus US$ 20,000/-being costs towards present proceeding in India. The plaintiff obtained the order of arrest relying upon Article 3 of the International Convention on Arrest of Ships, 1999 (1999 Convention) which provides as under:-

Article 3 : Exercise of right of arrest:

(1) “Arrest is permissible of any ship in respect of which a maritime claim is asserted if:

...(emphasis supplied)

3. The admitted position as averred in the plaint is that one J.H.Shipping Company Ltd., i.e., defendant no.2, who was the time charterer of the said vessel, on or about 10.08.2012 made a request to the plaintiff to provide them with a quotation for supply of bunkers to the said vessel at Tianjin, China. The 2nd defendant also provided the quantity and the specification of the bunkers to be supplied. The bunkers' specifications were provided as under:

NOTE :

BUNKER SPECS AS PER C/P :

ISO 8217/2010 (E) – for IFO : RMG 380 with max Viscocity 380 CST at 50 degrees celcius.

(emphasis supplied)

4. By an email dated 13.08.2012, the plaintiff confirmed to 2nd defendant that they will supply 450 MT of MF-380 at US$ 688 per MT and the supplier will be one Sinopec. The said email which is a confirmation between the plaintiff and defendant no.2 provides as under:

“A. All suppliers are made under the our supply terms and conditions (2005 Edition) unless otherwise agreed in writing, which can be found on reverse side of our invoice and www.georimoil.com.

B. Deliveries of marine fuels hereunder are delivered not only on the credit of the owner/charterer/master/the buyer, but also on the credit of the supplied vessel herself and the amount due shall become a maritime lien against the vessel immediately upon each delivery with signature of vessel's representatives made upon bunker delivery receipt of the physical supplier at loading port without any restriction of law at flag-nation and/or any charter party between owner and charterers.

5. The defendant no.3 admittedly is not a party to this confirmation. The applicable provisions in the general terms and conditions of sale and delivery (2005 Edition) which is the plaintiff's general terms and conditions read as under:

…...

1.2 “Buyer” means the vessel supplied and jointly and severally her Master, Owners, Managers/Operators, Disponent Owners, Time charterers, Bare-boat Charterers and Charterers or any party requesting offers or quotations for or ordering Bunkers and/or Services and any party on whose behalf the said offers, quotations, orders and subsequent agreements or contract have been made.

…..

4.6 Bunkers are delivered under this contract not only on the credit of Buyer but also on the credit of vessel receiving delivery or the Bunker and it is agreed and buyer warrants that Seller has the right to assert and enforce a lien against the receiving vessel to the amount of the Bunkers provided plus without limitation, any other expenses related to enforcement of the lien.

Buyer is presumed to have authority to bind vessel with a maritime lien.

Disclaimer stamps placed by vessel on bunker receipt will have no effect and do not waive Seller's lien.

….

5.2 If the party requesting Bunkers are not the Owners or Bare boat charters of the vessel, the Seller shall have the right to insist as precondition of sale that a payment guarantee is provided