JUDGMENT :

1. OSV Crest Mercury/the defendant vessel and her registered owner Continental Radiance Offshore Private Limited (Continental Radiance) have taken out this application purportedly under order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code) for vacating the order of arrest of the defendant vessel dated 21st June, 2021, unconditionally, or in the alternative reducing the security to be provided for the release of the defendant vessel to USD 18415 and also for a direction to provide a counter security in the sum of USD 4885024.74.

2. The background facts leading to this application can be summarized as under:-

a] Vision Projects Technologies Private Limited (Vision Projects) instituted a Commercial Admiralty Suit praying, inter alia, an order and decree directing the defendant vessel to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. USD 1,873,082.32 along with further interest @ 18% p.a. and for the arrest and sale of the defendant vessel and the application of the sale proceeds towards the claim of the plaintiff.

b] Vision Projects asserted that the defendant vessel is a tug/ offshore supply vessel having IMO 9724398. It is an Indian flag vessel. On the date of the institution of the suit, it was lying at port and harbor at Mumbai port in Indian territorial waters. Continental Radiance is the registered owner of the defendant vessel. A Bareboat Charterparty BARECON 2001 was executed between Vision Projects and Continental Radiance on 19th October, 2015 for a period of five years.

c] Vision Projects claimed under the terms of the BARECON 2001, it carried out a special survey, drydocking and various repairs to the defendant vessel, at the instance of Continental Radiance. Under the terms of charterparty 90% of the costs incurred for carrying out the special survey/statutory drydock was to be incurred by Continental Radiance. The plaintiff further averred that it had also arranged for agency services of Benline Agency India Private Limited and had also made payments to various authorities, vendors etc. for and on behalf of the defendant vessel, at the instance of Continental Radiance.

d] The plaintiff asserted that Continental Radiance failed to pay the agency fees as well as reimburse the amounts incurred by the plaintiff towards agency fees, for and on behalf of the defendant vessel. Continental Radiance also failed to pay for the statutory drydock and for various repairs carried out by the plaintiff to the defendant vessel, at the instance of Continental Radiance. This gave rise, according to the plaintiff, to a maritime claim to the tune of USD 1,873,082.32 for the costs incurred and services provided by the plaintiff to the defendant vessel.

3. Apprehending that the defendant vessel may be re-exported out of Indian waters, by the owners of the defendant vessel, by circumventing the necessary customs procedure and without following proper re-export formalities and the defendant vessel may be taken to a location beyond the jurisdiction of this Court, the plaintiff moved for the arrest of the defendant vessel. By an order dated 21st June, 2021 this Court ordered the arrest of the defendant vessel.

4. The defendant vessel and her registered owner have taken out this application for vacating the order of arrest and the consequential or alternative reliefs with the assertion that the order of arrest is required to be vacated as it was obtained by suppressing material facts and on the basis of the material which did not justify the arrest of the vessel. Multiple grounds have been raised by the applicants, which according to the applicant, either singly or collectively make it imperative to vacate the order of arrest of defendant vehicle as it is causing grave prejudice to the applicant.

5. The grounds on which the order of arrest is sought to be vacated can be culled out as under:-

a] A false case of urgency, to the knowledge of the plaintiff, was attempted to be made out to obtain the order of arrest. There was no possibility of the