ORDER :

1. Sapura Dana SPV PTE. Ltd. (“Sapura Dana”), the registered owner of Barge Sapura 2000 (MMSI No.533130084), the defendant – vessel, has preferred this application seeking a declaration that the order of arrest of the defendant – vessel dated 29th April, 2020, was wrongfully obtained and for refund of the security of Rs.1,48,35,823.75 deposited by the applicant on 30th April, 2020 for the release of the defendant – vessel, alongwith the interest accrued thereon.

2. Background facts leading to this application can be stated in brief as under:

(a) Kreuz Subsea PTE Ltd. (“Kreuz”), the plaintiff, is a company incorporated under the Laws of Singapore. The plaintiff is engaged in the business, inter alia, of providing integrated subsea services to the offshore oil and gas industry. The defendant – vessel is a Derrick Pipelay Barge flying the flag of Malaysia. Sapura Dana is the registered owner of the defendant – vessel.

(b) The plaintiff claims defendant – vessel is beneficially owned by Sapura Energy Berhad. The latter is also the Commercial Operator and Technical Manager of the defendant – vessel. Sapura Energy group owns and controls many subsidiaries around the world including Sapura Offshore SDN BHD (“Sapura Offshore”), a 100% subsidiary of Sapura Energy.

(c) On 18th December, 2018 Sapura Offshore had placed an order for supply of Reel Drive Unit (“RDU”) with chute on rental basis alongwith deployment of personnel and technicians for operating the same. It was followed by a revised service order dated 22nd May, 2019. Pursuant to the service order, the plaintiff supplied the equipment and personnel to the defendant – vessel, which utilized the same for its operations. On 24th June, 2019, post a notice to invoice, a payment certificate was issued by Sapura Offshore approving payment of US$ 410, 370.50. On the strength of the Payment Certificate the plaintiff raised invoice dated 24th June, 2019 in the said sum of US$ 410,370.50. Sapura Offshore failed to make the payment.

(d) In view of the default in the discharge of the liability, the plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of US$ 174,825 for the charges for the use of the equipment and utilization of the services of the personnel by the defendant – vessel, alongwith the interest and cost. But for the equipments and the services rendered by the personnel deployed by the plaintiff, the defendant – vessel could not have been able to undertake her operations for the project as it would not have been able to lay cables in subsea waters. The plaintiff further avers Sapura Offshore was an agent of Sapura Dana and it had expressly warranted that it had authority from the defendant – vessel and its owner to pledge the defendant – vessel’s credit.

(e) With the aforesaid averments, the plaintiff moved for the arrest of the defendant – vessel whilst it was at an anchorage of the Port of Mumbai. By an order dated 29th April, 2020, this Court, finding a prima facie case, directed the arrest of the defendant – vessel.

(f) On the following day, the defendant moved for release of the vessel by depositing security amount in terms of the Judge’s Order, without prejudice to its rights and contentions and admitting any liability. Thereupon the defendant – vessel came to be released from arrest.

(g) Sapura Dana, the applicant, has preferred this application contending that the arrest of the defendant – vessel was wholly unjustified and patently wrongful. According to the applicant, the plaintiff approached the Court with a case that the defendant – vessel is beneficially owned by Sapura Engery and Sapura Offshore is a 100% subsidiary of Sapura Engery, and that Sapura Offshore had expressly warranted that it had authority from defendant – vessel, its owner, to pledge the defendant’s credit.

(h) The applicant contends none of the aforesaid assertions justified the arrest of the defendant – vessel as it is indubitable that the Sapura Dana is the registered owner of the defendant – vessel and the equ