The standard of inquiry in cases of arrest or application for release from arrest is: Does the Plaintiff have a reasonably arguable best case.

1. These two Motions are taken out by the Defendants in two admiralty suits for vacating the respective arrests of the Defendant vessels. The Motions involve common questions of law and are heard together.

2. The Defendant Vessel in Admiralty Suit No. 94 of 2015 is under arrest for a maritime claim of USD 67,458.87 towards supply of bunkers by the Plaintiff, whereas the vessel in Admiralty Suit No. 240 of 2015 is under arrest for a claim of USD 243,239.36 also in respect of supply of bunkers. Whereas the order of arrest was executed in the former case and a security for the claim was furnished and the vessel released against such security, in the latter case the arrest warrant was yet to be served on the vessel at the time the matter was argued, though the vessel was within the territorial waters of India. In both cases, the owners of the vessels contest the maritime claims on the ground of lack of privity between the respective Plaintiffs and the owners concerning the supply of bunkers, claiming that OW Bunker Middle East DMCC and OW Bunker Malta Ltd. were purchasers of bunkers, though bunkers were physically supplied to the vessels. These two OW companies are facing bankruptcy proceedings and both Plaintiffs seek to enforce their claims against the vessels, which are opposed by the owners of the vessels inter alia on the ground of lack of privity, as noted above. That is the gist of the controversy in the two Motions.

3. In Admiralty Suit No. 94 of 2015, the vessel M. T. VALOR was at port of Kandla in India, when OW Bunker Middle East DMCC (“OW Bunker”) approached the Plaintiff for supply of bunkers to the vessel. The Plaintiff issued order confirmation to OW Bunker, who in turn issued purchase order confirmation. The Plaintiff thereupon supplied bunkers against a Bunker Delivery Receipt, under which the Chief Engineer of the vessel acknowledged receipt of bunkers. The Plaintiff thereafter learnt that OW Bunker's parent company had become insolvent. The Plaintiff thereupon cancelled all credit provided to OW Bunker and issued a demand notice to the owners of the vessel. The Plaintiff asserts that the claim for bunkers supplied to the vessel is a maritime claim, which can be enforced against the vessel in rem. This is the case with which the Plaintiff has come before this Court and got the vessel arrested. On the other hand, the case of the owners of M. t. VALOR is that the Plaintiff appears to have entered into contracts with OW Bunker for supplies to various vessels and M. t. VALOR was only one of them. The vessel M. t. VALOR was on a time charter with Bryggen Shipping International AS (“Bryggen”); Bryggen ordered bunkers from Bergen Bunkers AS (“Bergen”); Bergen, who is a nonphysical bunker supplier, then entered into a contract with OW Bunker, another nonphysical bunker supplier; OW Bunker, in turn, entered into a contract with Gulf Petroleum Pte. Ltd., a Singapore based company, which is a group company of the Plaintiff; and the group company instructed the Plaintiff to make the physical supply. Based on these facts, which are not in dispute, firstly, it is submitted that the supply was to a time charterer (Bryggen) and not to the owner, and secondly, the contract of supply even as far as Bryggen is concerned, was with Bergen, whereas the Plaintiff or its group company's contract for supply was with OW Bunker. It is, therefore, submitted that there is no privity between the owners of the vessel, i.e. the Defendant, and the physical supplier of bunkers, i.e. the Plaintiff, and unless there is an underlying liability of the owners (or demise charterers as opposed to time charterers), the vessel is not liable to arrest for a maritime claim which does not create any maritime lien. That is the Defendant's case in the Notice of Motion.

4. The facts in the companion Notice of Motion, i.e. Notice of Motion (L) No. 805 of 2015, are more or less similar except that the vessel in question, M. t. Tradewind, was not on time