Naresh H. Patil, J.

1. Admit. Heard finally by consent of parties.

2. This appeal arises from an order dated 4 June 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby a notice of motion filed by the respondent in the admiralty suit in question wherein a prayer made by the respondent for setting aside of an exparte order of arrest of vessel dated 16 March 2017 and for return of security furnished by the respondent alongwith interest accrued thereon stands allowed.

2. Appellant is the original plaintiff. Respondent is the original defendant namely MV Amoy Fortune. The notice of motion in question was taken out by the owners of the vessel.

3. Briefly stated facts are as under:-

The case of the appellant as set out in the plaint is that the appellant is a company incorporated under the laws of Turkey interalia engaged in the business of supplying bunkers to seagoing vessels at various ports. The plaintiff operates in the filed of fuel sales and is in business of supplying products to end users in the aviation and maritime segments. The respondent is a foreign, seagoing vessel, flying the flag of Hong Kong, China as per the equasis report dated 14 March 2017.

4. The admiralty suit in question is instituted by the appellant seeking a judgment and decree against the respondent vessel and its arrest, sequestration, condemnation and sale for securing and/or satisfying the appellant's outstanding amount to US $ 309,994.31. The principal amount being of US $ 285,300 along with interest at the rate of 1% per month amounting to US $ 12,694.31 as per the prayers made in the suit. The said amount was due and payable on account of appellant having supplied bunkers to the respondent, which was used and for which the vessel was benefited for prosecuting her voyages. The appellant having not been paid in respect of the said bunkers as supplied, the suit in question was filed.

5. The case as made out in the plaint and more particularly in paragraph 4 is that in usual course of business, one Force Twins Shipping (for short, 'Force') had approached the appellant for supply of fuel/bunkers to various vessels. If the supply was to be made to vessels undertaking cabotage voyages, Force requested the appellant to invoice the same to them directly. However, for vessel undertaking international voyages. “In each supply, Force sent the orders with regards to invoicing. From time to time Force requested the appellant to raise invoice in the name of one Sentex LDX, an offshore company which was owned by Force.” On 21 September 2016, Force on behalf of respondent vessel and/or master and/or owners and/or managers and/or operators approached the appellant for supply of 1100 mts IFO 380 CST (for short, 'bunkers') to the respondent vessel at Istanbul Port on 27 September 2016 which was by the following email :-

“We kindly request two samples to be given to the vessel.”

6. Pursuant to the said requisition as made by Force, the appellant on 4 October 2016 supplied 1100 mts of bunkers to the respondent vessel at the port of Istambul. The bunker delivery receipt bearing No. 006834 dated 4 October 2016 was issued for the said supply. These bunkers were accepted without raising any protest. The Master/Chief Engineer of the respondent vessel acknowledged receipt of bunkers by endorsing upon the bunker delivery receipt. The endorsement is required to be noted which reads thus:-

“We acknowledge receipt of the above product and confirm that samples were taken as per MARPOL Annex VI procedure at the vessel's manifold, sealed and numbered as follows :

Yukarida belirtilen yakitin teslim alindigini ve MARPOL Ek VI prosedurune uygun olarak gemi manifoldundan numunelerin alinip muhurleridigini ve numaralandigini teyid ederiz

Signature/Imza :

sd/-

Master/Chief Engineer

Kaptan/Bas Mohendis Imzasi

Full name/Isim : ZHANG Gr XAN

Block letter/Buyuk harflerle

Vessel's stamp

Gemi muhuru”

7. In regard to the above supply on 3 October 2016 at the request of Force, the appellant had issued an invoice