The central legal point established in the judgment is the enforceability of a claim against a vessel in the hands of a third party transferee and the permissibility of piercing the corporate veil in the absence of established fraud.

1. The Notice of Motion is for vacating the arrest of a ship. The Applicant is a third party purchaser, who has purchased the ship before its arrest for the maritime claim of the Plaintiff against the former owner of the ship. By consent of parties, on 26 December 2014, pending the hearing of this Motion, the arrest order was vacated, but the Applicant was restrained from disposing of, alienating, encumbering or creating third party rights in respect of the ship. That injunction has continued till today.

2. The accompanying Chamber Summons is the Plaintiff's application for joinder of the Applicant as a party defendant to the suit. The vessel under arrest now having been purportedly claimed to be owned by the Applicant, whose contract of purchase is assailed by the Plaintiff contending inter alia that the Applicant is merely an alter ego of Defendant No.3, the erstwhile owner of the vessel, it is necessary and in the interest of justice that the Applicant be joined as a party defendant to the present suit. Such joinder is necessary to determine the real controversy in the suit. The Chamber Summons is, accordingly, allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). The amendment shall be carried out within two weeks from today.

3. Coming now to the merits of the Motion, the arrest is objected to by the Applicant – newly added Defendant No.4 – on several grounds. It is firstly claimed that the alleged claim for the Plaintiff against Defendant No.3 and in respect of the 2nd Defendant vessel for necessaries supplied is not a maritime claim. Learned Counsel for Defendant No.4 relies on the various admiralty statutes and seeks to explain the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.V. Elisabeth Vs. M/s. Harwan Investment & Trading Co. (AIR 1993 Supreme Court 1014) in support of her submission that the claim is not a maritime claim and the vessel cannot be arrested for the same under the admiralty law applicable in India. Secondly, it is submitted that this Court has no admiralty jurisdiction over an Indian flag flying vessel registered under the Indian laws and the vessel cannot be arrested in pursuance of admiralty jurisdiction. Learned Counsel for Defendant No.4 relies on judgments of the Kerala High Court in cases of Fithaly Fernando Vs. Principal Officer and Shipping Master (2010(3) KHC 279) and Chembolaparambu General Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M.V. Kavarathi (2014(4) KLT 237) and the judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of Porto Maina Maritime Sa Vs. M.V. Gati Majestic (AIR 2014 Calcutta 47) in support of this submission. Based on this submission and in the light of the judgments referred to, learned Counsel seeks to persuade this Court to take a different view from the view of another learned Single Judge of this Court (Dharmadhikari, J.) in Crown Maritime Co. Ltd. Vs. Barge Salina II (2008 (1) Bom. C.R. 143) and refer the matter to a Division Bench. In Crown Maritime Co. this Court has taken the view that a plaintiff can invoke the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court even against an Indian flag flying vessel. It is submitted that this decision is not correct and the matter needs to be heard by a Division Bench. Thirdly, it is submitted that Defendant No.4 is a third party transferee of the suit vessel, such transfer having taken place before the arrest of the vessel. It is submitted that the suit claim not having given rise to any maritime lien, the claim is not enforceable against the vessel in hands of a third party.

4. I propose to decide the Motion only on this last point, since I am of the view that the Plaintiff has failed to show how the vessel can be arrested in the hands of a third party. My reasons for this view are as follows:

5. There is controvertible evidence before the Court concerning the title acquired by Defendant No.4 to the 2nd Defendant vessel – M.V. Apsarika – before the plaintiff sought arrest of the vessel. The following are some of the pertinent documents:

(i) Agreement for sale dated 15 March 2014 ex