JUDGMENT :

K.R. SHRIRAM, J.

COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 55 OF 2022

1. Appellant in both these appeals is impugning a common order and judgment passed by the learned single Judge of this court on 24th March 2021 in two Interim Applications, viz. Interim Application (L) No. 8290 of 2021 and Interim Application (L) No. 7724 of 2021. Interim Application (L) No. 7724 of 2021 was filed by the auction purchaser of appellant/vessel MV Golden Pride which was allegedly owned by one Golden Star Marine FZE. Interim Application (L) No. 8290 of 2021 is filed at the instance of one Golden Star Marine FZE allegedly the owner of MV Golden Pride. Though it is not clear why two separate appeals have been filed, we are only concerned with the impugned order so far as it relates to Interim Application (L) No. 8290 of 2021 filed by Golden Star Marine FZE. The vessel MV Golden Pride (the said vessel) is no more a vessel since it has been sold in auction by the court and the said vessel has already been scrapped. Mr. Kapadia stated he was not pressing that issue of said vessel being sold for scrapping and not as a trading vessel.

2. It is the case of Golden Star Marine FZE (hereinafter referred to as “appellant”) that the order dated 24th August 2020 passed by this court arresting the said vessel could not have been passed since the claim of Respondent No. 1 was not a maritime claim under Section 4 of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 (the Admiralty Act).

3. The second part of appellant’s case is impugning the order of the learned single Judge in permitting Mumbai Port Trust, viz. Respondent No. 2, to withdraw an amount of Rs. 1,31,27,146/- out of a sum of Rs. 1.50 Crores that appellant had deposited in the Hon’ble Apex Court, later transferred pursuant to the directions/order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 12th March 2021 to the Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court, Mumbai who is also the Admiralty Registrar.

4. Respondent No. 1/Original Plaintiff had filed this Admiralty suit against the said vessel MV Golden Pride claiming indemnity for unpaid port charges with regard to the said vessel which Respondent No. 2 may look to them for payment. Respondent No. 1 was of course denying that it had any personal liability to the port.

5. Respondent No. 1 was the agent of appellant. Towards the end of May 2018 Respondent No. 1 was appointed to provide agency services to the said vessel during her stay at Mumbai. The agency charges were agreed and appellant was to pay port charges to Respondent No. 2. Port charges were to be paid in advance but despite repeated reminders appellant did not pay port charges. Port raised invoice on Respondent No. 1 and also threatened legal action. Respondent No. 1 informed appellant that as on 31st July 2020 the estimated port charges would be approximately Rs. 46,00,000/- but still only a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid. Respondent No. 1 had also given an undertaking to the Port – Respondent No. 2 to pay all its dues for all vessels calling under its agency. As Respondent No. 1 feared the port will look to it for payment of its charges and may even not permit vessels to call under its agency, Respondent No. 1 called upon appellant to pay. As appellant was not paying either the Port or Respondent No. 1, Respondent No. 1 filed an action in rem against the said vessel claiming that it is liable to pay the port the dues for the said vessel. According to Respondent No. 1, though it would be in the nature of indemnity, the underlying claim would be a maritime claim against the said vessel, inter-alia, under Section 4(1)(n) and 4(1)(p) of the Admiralty Act. It is averred in the plaint that (a) Respondent No. 1’s claim arises out of port dues payable in respect of the said vessel and it is not liable to pay the port for the same, (b) Respondent No. 1 reasonably apprehends that the port will look to it directly for payment of its dues, and (c) hence, Respondent No. 1 is entitled to be indemnified by the