An inter partes suit simply for interim reliefs pending arbitration would not be maintainable, and the jurisdiction to arrest a ship in an action in rem should not be exercised for the purpose of providing security of an award in arbitration proceedings.

K.R. SHRIRAM, J.

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:

(a) That Bunkers onboard Defendant No.2 vessel be arrested and detained by a Warrant of Arrest of this Hon'ble Court, as security for the Plaintiff's claim in the arbitration to be commenced and for interest, expenses, cost and poundage.

(b) That Bunkers onboard Defendant No.2 vessel be condemned in the sum of USUS$926,216.18 (equivalent to INR 5,09,41,889.90 at US US$1=Rs.55/-) as per the statement of claim annexed at Exhibit LL hereto, costs with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from date of the suit till payment/realization and poundage, as security for the Plaintiff's claim in arbitration to be commenced.

(c) That Bunkers onboard Defendant No.2 vessel be sold and the sale proceeds thereof be held as security towards the Plaintiff's claim in arbitration to be commenced.

(d) That Defendant No.3 be called upon to forthwith disclose

i. Full particulars of all shippers who have booked cargo onboard Defendant No.2 vessel.

ii. The amount of Freight due to Defendant No.3 from the shippers whose cargo has been booked onboard the Defendant No.2 vessel.

(e) That the Freight due for cargo loaded at Mumbai be arrested and detained by a Warrant of Arrest of this Hon'ble Court and Defendant No.3 be directed and ordered by this Hon'ble Court to deposit the said Freight, as security for the Plaintiff’s claim in the arbitration to be commenced and for interest, expenses, cost and poundage.

(f) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, Bunkers onboard Defendant no.2 vessel and the Freight due for cargo loaded at Mumbai be arrested by and under the order of this Hon'ble Court for satisfaction of the Plaintiff's claim in arbitration to be commenced.

(g) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit Bunkers onboard Defendant No.3 vessel be condemned for sale and the same be sold under the orders and directions of this Hon'ble Court and the sale proceeds thereof be appropriated towards satisfaction of the Plaintiff’s claim in arbitration to be commenced.

(h) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit Freight due for cargo loaded onboard Defendant No.3 at Mumbai be directed and ordered by this Hon'ble Court to be deposited in this Hon'ble Court, as security of the Plaintiff's claim in the arbitration to be commenced and for interest, expenses, cost and poundage.

(i) For ad-interim reliefs in terms of the (f), (g) and (h) above.

(j) For costs; and

(k) For such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.

(Emphasis supplied)

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 all